Thomas v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Supreme Court

Thomas v. Department of Revenue

952 P.2d 542, 326 Or. 397, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 15

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1998

DocketOTC 3912; SC S44146

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 952 P.2d 542 (Thomas v. Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Department of Revenue, 952 P.2d 542, 326 Or. 397, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 15 (Or. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

*399 GILLETTE, J.

In this appeal from a judgment entered in the Oregon Tax Court, the underlying issue is whether taxpayer, a physician, is required to report as “income,” for purposes of Oregon income tax, money that he earned for his work as a doctor. Taxpayer argues that he does not have to report such money as income, because his labor — i.e., the services that he performed in return for that money — is a deductible expense whose value is equal to what he was paid for it. Once that “expense” is deducted, he reasons, he is left with no net income. Thus, he concludes, he owes no tax.

The Tax Court took a contrary view on that issue. On cross-motions for summary judgment, it awarded summary judgment to defendant Department of Revenue (the department). Finding that taxpayer’s arguments were “groundless and contrary to established law,” the Tax Court also awarded the department $5,000 in damages, pursuant to ORS 305.437 (1993). 1 The Tax Court entered judgment accordingly, and taxpayer appealed to this court.

In this court, taxpayer raises a total of 30 “questions” under 13 “issues” that he claims are presented by the decision of the Tax Court. A systematic review of each of taxpayer’s arguments, followed by an explanation as to why each is groundless, would not benefit the public, the bench, or the bar. We hold that the Tax Court did not err, either in granting summary judgment to the department or in awarding it $5,000 in damages pursuant to ORS 305.437 (1993).

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

1

At the time of the Tax Court’s decision, ORS 305.437 (1993) provided:

“Whenever it appears to the Oregon Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, damages in an amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be awarded to the Department of Revenue by the Oregon Tax Court in its judgment.”

The 1995 legislature amended ORS 305.437, effective September 1,1997. Or Laws 1995, ch 650, § 6a. That amendment plays no role in our decision in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*399 GILLETTE, J.

In this appeal from a judgment entered in the Oregon Tax Court, the underlying issue is whether taxpayer, a physician, is required to report as “income,” for purposes of Oregon income tax, money that he earned for his work as a doctor. Taxpayer argues that he does not have to report such money as income, because his labor — i.e., the services that he performed in return for that money — is a deductible expense whose value is equal to what he was paid for it. Once that “expense” is deducted, he reasons, he is left with no net income. Thus, he concludes, he owes no tax.

The Tax Court took a contrary view on that issue. On cross-motions for summary judgment, it awarded summary judgment to defendant Department of Revenue (the department). Finding that taxpayer’s arguments were “groundless and contrary to established law,” the Tax Court also awarded the department $5,000 in damages, pursuant to ORS 305.437 (1993). 1 The Tax Court entered judgment accordingly, and taxpayer appealed to this court.

In this court, taxpayer raises a total of 30 “questions” under 13 “issues” that he claims are presented by the decision of the Tax Court. A systematic review of each of taxpayer’s arguments, followed by an explanation as to why each is groundless, would not benefit the public, the bench, or the bar. We hold that the Tax Court did not err, either in granting summary judgment to the department or in awarding it $5,000 in damages pursuant to ORS 305.437 (1993).

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

1

At the time of the Tax Court’s decision, ORS 305.437 (1993) provided:

“Whenever it appears to the Oregon Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, damages in an amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be awarded to the Department of Revenue by the Oregon Tax Court in its judgment.”

The 1995 legislature amended ORS 305.437, effective September 1,1997. Or Laws 1995, ch 650, § 6a. That amendment plays no role in our decision in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

952 P.2d 542, 326 Or. 397, 1998 Ore. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-department-of-revenue-or-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack