Miller v. Department of Revenue, State of Or.
Decision Date | 21 May 1998 |
Citation | 327 Or. 129,958 P.2d 833 |
Parties | Paul MILLER and Robin Miller, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE of OREGON, Respondent. Kathleen JOHNSTON and Frank Johnston, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE of OREGON, Respondent. Robert H. LOVERIN and Jane Loverin, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE of OREGON, Respondent. OTC 3763, 3764, 3768; SC S43674. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Steven W. Seymour, of Samuels, Yoelin, Kantor, Seymour & Spinrad, LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.
Marilyn J. Harbur, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James C. Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, and Hardy Myers, Attorney General.
Before CARSON, C.J., and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, DURHAM and LEESON, JJ. *
Taxpayers, who are the general partners and the spouses of the general partners in three Oregon limited partnerships, appeal from a judgment of the Oregon Tax Court that assessed additional Oregon income taxes against them for the years 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. We review for errors of law, ORS 305.445, 1 and affirm.
The Tax Court made the following findings of fact, none of which the parties challenge:
Miller v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 488, 490-93, 1996 WL 263240 (1996) (internal footnote omitted).
Taxpayers appealed the notices of assessment that were issued pursuant to the audit. After the administrative hearing, the Department of Revenue (Department) concluded that the sales were not arm's-length transactions and that the best indication of the fair market value of the properties was their assessed value on January 1, 1985. For Fischer Court I, which is the property selected for the purpose of analysis before the Tax Court and this court, the assessed value was $627,890. The Department sustained the auditor's adjustments to depreciation and her adjustments regarding allocation of profits and losses to the general and limited partners. Taxpayers appealed to the Tax Court.
According to the Tax Court, it was "unlikely that the total amount due under the wrap note will ever be paid" and that there was "no economic basis for the numbers involved except tax benefits." The court concluded that the purchase price of Fischer Court I exceeded its fair market value, that taxpayers had failed to establish that the remaining useful life of the property was 15 years and that the limited partnership agreement did not provide for allocation of 99.9 percent of the profits and losses to the general partners. Taxpayers assign error to all three holdings.
Pursuant to ORS 316.007, we apply federal tax laws and federal court interpretations of those laws in resolving the issues raised by taxpayers. ORS 316.007 provides, in part:
"It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly * * * to make the Oregon personal income tax law identical in effect to the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code relating to the measurement of taxable income of individuals * * *; to achieve this result by application of the various provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code relating to the definition of income, exceptions and exclusions therefrom, deductions (business and personal), * * * basis, depreciation and other pertinent provisions relating to gross income as defined therein, modified as provided in this chapter, resulting in a final amount called 'taxable income' * * *."
Additionally, ORS 316.032(2) provides that, insofar as is practicable in the administration of ORS chapter 316, "the department shall apply and follow the administrative and judicial interpretations of the federal income tax law." See also Baisch v. Dept. of Rev., 316 Or. 203, 209, 850 P.2d 1109 (1993) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Khalaf v. Dep't of Revenue
...federal tax laws and federal court interpretations of those laws in resolving the issues raised by taxpayer[ ]." Miller v. Dept. of Rev. , 327 Or. 129, 135, 958 P.2d 833 (1998).With that background, we now turn to the specific deductions at issue in this matter.B. Dune Buggy DepreciationFed......
-
Yanez v. Washington County Assessor, TC 4711 (OR 4/22/2005), TC 4711.
...if the sale was a voluntary, arm's-length transaction between a knowledgeable and willing buyer and seller." Miller v. Dept. of Rev., 327 Or 129, 137, 958 P2d 833 (1998) (citing Kem v. Dept. of Rev., 267 Or 111, 114, 514 P2d 1335 (1973)). Here Yanez testified that taxpayers had purchased th......
-
Clark v. Wash. Cnty. Assessor, TC-MD 160101R
...the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof * * *." Miller v. Dept. of Rev., 327 Or 129, 958 P2d 833 (1998), (citing Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 265, 798 P2d 235 (1990)). Plaintiff relied upon an appraisal report prepared by......
-
Gregg v. Dep't of Revenue
...168(c), at-risk limitations in IRC section 465, and the IRC section 469 passive loss rules, to name a few. In Miller v. Dept. of Rev., 327 Or 129, 139, 958 P2d 833 (1998), the Oregon Supreme Court ruled:"A taxpayer has the burden of establishing the reasonableness of a depreciation deductio......