Fairbanks v. Dept. of Rev. , 20 Or. Tax 552 ( 2012 )

552 July 30, 2012 No. 61
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Alfred FAIRBANKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
and Lake County Assessor,
Defendants.
(TC 5087)
Plaintiff (taxpayer) appealed from a Magistrate Division decision of dis-
missal. Defendant (the department) moved for dismissal and summary judgment
on the grounds that taxpayer was admittedly time-barred, there were no dis-
puted material facts and that the department was entitled to prevail as a mat-
ter of law. Granting the department’s motion, the court ruled that as taxpayer’s
complaint was not timely filed, the court had no jurisdiction to grant taxpayer’s
requested relief.
Submitted on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Alfred Fairbanks, Plaintiff (taxpayer), filed a response
pro se.
Melisse S. Cunningham, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed the motion for
Defendant (the department).
Decision for Defendant rendered July 30, 2012.
HENRY C. BREITHAUPT, Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the motion
for summary judgment filed by Defendant Department of
Revenue (the department). Plaintiff (taxpayer) has sub-
mitted a writing to the court urging the court to deny the
motion.
The record clearly indicates, and taxpayer does not
deny, that taxpayer’s appeal to the Magistrate Division of
the court was untimely. Taxpayer strenuously asserts, how-
ever, that he should not be barred from litigating the merits
of the case and demonstrating the error in the actions of the
county assessor.
Cite as 20 OTR 552 (2012) 553
This court has no authority to hear a dispute and
grant relief to a plaintiff unless the plaintiff complies with
the time limits set by the legislature for the filing of a
complaint. These time rules apply and have been enforced
against both taxpayers and against the government. See
Dept. of Rev. v. American Honda Motor Co., 20 OTR 404(2011).
The legislature has provided no exception that
lengthens the time period for filing a complaint depending
on the strength of the position of the plaintiff. The court
cannot provide any exception on its own.
The motion of the department is granted. Counsel
for Defendant is directed to prepare an appropriate form of
judgment. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted.