Simpson v. Department of Revenue
| Decision Date | 07 April 1994 |
| Citation | 870 P.2d 824,318 Or. 579 |
| Parties | James and Gloria SIMPSON, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Respondent. OTC 3302; SC S40384. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Thomas H. Lowrey, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.
Robert M. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the response were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Taxpayers claim that Oregon's taxation of retirement benefits paid by the State of Alaska is unconstitutional, because Oregon exempts its own public retirees' retirement benefits from income tax. Respondent Department of Revenue denied appellants' refund claims for 1985 through 1990. Taxpayers timely appealed to the Oregon Tax Court, which entered a judgment sustaining the department's opinion and order. Appellants appealed to this court. On de novo review, ORS 305.445, we agree with the conclusion of the Tax Court that taxpayers have not advanced any viable legal basis supporting their contentions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.
The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherman v. Department of Revenue
...to the state's own government retirees that the state does not extend to the retirees of other state governments, Simpson v. Dept. of Rev., 318 Or. 579, 870 P.2d 824 (1994), suggests otherwise. Taxpayers have not raised any argument that was not considered and rejected in Taxpayers have ano......
-
Kissner v. Department of Revenue
...Revenue, State of Missouri, 894 S.W.2d 154 (Mo 1995) (en banc); Simpson v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 455 (1993), aff'd per curium, 318 Or. 579, 870 P.2d 824 (1994). doctrine was explained by the Missouri Supreme Court as follows: “ Because the doctrine is a limitation on one sovereign's right t......
-
Becraft v. Department of Revenue
...See Huckaba v. Johnson, 281 Or. 23, 26, 573 P.2d 305 (1978) and Simpson v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 455 (1993) aff'd 318 Or. 579, 870 P.2d 824 (1994). In instance, the distinction, drawn on the basis of those who work for railroads engaged in interstate commerce as opposed to employees whose l......
-
Buras v. Dept. of Rev.
...income that a taxpayer receives in Oregon even though the income originates from a source in another state. See Simpson v. Dept. of Rev., 318 Or. 579, 581, 870 P.2d 824 (1994) (affirming taxation of retirement benefits originating in Alaska but received in Oregon). Further, none of the sour......