Sony Computer Home Ent. v. Washington Cty., Tc-Md 080923b (or.tax 1-30-2009)
This text of Sony Computer Home Ent. v. Washington Cty., Tc-Md 080923b (or.tax 1-30-2009) (Sony Computer Home Ent. v. Washington Cty., Tc-Md 080923b (or.tax 1-30-2009)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The issue concerns a personal property penalty imposed for the 2007-08 tax year on Account P2150022. Plaintiff seeks a waiver of that penalty.
Because the return was not submitted before August 1, the county assessed a penalty of 50 percent. Plaintiff was given notice of those fees by way of an omitted property notice dated July 29, 2008. *Page 2
Plaintiff's representative stated the items in question were constantly moving locations and were managed by an outside company. (Ptf's Compl at 2.) Further, there was a problem in devising a method to "correctly and accurately report these assets to the county assessor." (Id.) Plaintiff's representative stated that it first became aware of the need to file a return in February of 2008.
ORS
"After August 1, a taxpayer who files a return to which this section applies or who fails to file a return shall be subject to a penalty equal to 50 percent of the tax attributable to the taxable personal property of the taxpayer."
Plaintiff did not file its return before August 1, 2007. Pursuant to the statute, Plaintiff is responsible for a 50 percent penalty. Plaintiff claims, however, it should be excused from the penalty because of circumstances beyond its immediate control.
ORS
ORS
305.288 (5)(b) defines what constitutes good and sufficient cause: "`Good and sufficient cause':(A) Means an extraordinary circumstance that is beyond the control of the taxpayer, or the taxpayer's agent or representative, and that causes the taxpayer, agent or representative to fail to pursue the statutory right of appeal; and
"(B) Does not include inadvertence, oversight, lack of knowledge, hardship or reliance on misleading information provided by any person except an authorized tax official providing the relevant misleading information."
Plaintiff's reliance upon a third party to track the asset location does not relieve the responsibility to report. The situation may be based on misleading conduct, but not that of "an authorized tax official." Further, Plaintiff was unaware of the filing requirement until early 2008. That specifically does not constitute a valid reason to compromise the statutory penalty.
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the appeal is denied.
Dated this _____ day of January 2009.
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the RegularDivision of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street,Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 StateStreet, Salem, OR. Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of theDecision or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed. This document was signed by Magistrate Jeffrey S. Mattson on January30, 2009. The Court filed and entered this document on January 30,2009.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sony Computer Home Ent. v. Washington Cty., Tc-Md 080923b (or.tax 1-30-2009), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sony-computer-home-ent-v-washington-cty-tc-md-080923b-ortax-ortc-2009.