Mughal v. Dept. of Rev. , 23 Or. Tax 509 ( 2019 )

No. 22 November 20, 2019 509
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Usman MUGHAL
and Zahara S. Baloch,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon, and
Multhomah County Assessor,
Defendants.
(TC 5391)
Plaintiffs (taxpayers) filed their complaint in the Regular Division one day
late. On a motion to dismiss, the court determined that taxpayers did not qualify
for an additional three days to file under Tax Court Rule (TCR) 10 B because
the rule does not apply to “the initial filing of an appeal.” The court rejected tax-
payers’ other arguments.
Submitted on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
Michael J. Mangan, Attorney at Law, Portland, filed a
response for Plaintiffs.
James C. Wallace, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Salem, filed the motion for Defendant
Department of Revenue.
Carlos A. Rasch, Assistant Multnomah County Counsel,
Portland, filed a motion and joinder for Defendant
Multnomah County Assessor.
Decision for Defendants rendered November 20, 2019.
ROBERT T. MANICKE, Judge.
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’
motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ response to the motions.
Defendant Department of Revenue (the department) has
moved to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiffs (taxpayers) as
untimely. Defendant Multnomah County Assessor joined
the department’s motion. Taxpayers do not contest that they
filed their complaint one day after the 60th day following the
magistrate’s entry of the final decision. See ORS 305.501(5)(a)
510 Mughal v. Dept. of Rev.
(complaint must be filed “within 60 days after the date of
entry of the [magistrate’s] written decision”); e.g., Gregg v.
Dept. of Rev., TC 5319, WL 1976030 (Or Tax Apr 26, 2018)
(dismissing complaint filed on 61st day). Taxpayers assert
that they inadvertently misread Tax Court Rule (TCR) 10 B
as allowing them an additional three days to file their
complaint.1 Although TCR 10 B does generally extend fil-
ing deadlines by three days after service, the first words of
the rule plainly state that the rule does not apply to com-
plaints. See TCR 10 B (“Except for service of summons or
the initial filing of an appeal * * *.”). Taxpayers acknowl-
edge that their facts are materially identical to those in
Sproul & Sproul, Inc. v. Deschutes County Assessor, 18 OTR
321 (2005), but taxpayers ask the court to overturn that
decision by allowing the three-day extension to apply to
their complaint. The court declines to do so, as the dead-
line for filing a complaint was set by an act of the legisla-
ture, unlike deadlines imposed by the court’s own rules, to
which TCR 10 B generally applies. See id. at 323 (“Moreover,
the rules of this court cannot trump a statutory provision
absent some other statutory authority or basis for doing
so.”).
Finally, taxpayers state that they believe their case
qualifies for late-filing relief and a correction to their prop-
erty’s real market value under ORS 305.288(1),2 and that
they remain entitled to seek that relief in the Magistrate
Division. They ask this Division to hear that claim now.
But the Regular Division is not authorized to allow tax-
payers to “skip a step” by proceeding first in the Regular
Division under ORS 305.288. ORS 305.501(1) states that “an
appeal to the tax court shall be heard by a tax court mag-
istrate unless specially designated by the tax court judge
for hearing in the regular division.” The Regular Division
rules provide for special designation in two circumstances:
1
Taxpayers’ response to the department’s motion to dismiss explains the
facts as between taxpayers and their counsel as follows: “Prior to obtaining rep-
resentation, Plaintiffs believed that they had until September 27, 2019 to appeal
the Magistrate’s Decision. The basis for their belief is taxpayers’ own interpre-
tation of * * * TCR 10B. They believed the additional three days applied to the
Magistrate’s decision. They asked counsel to file this appeal on September 25,
2019.”
2
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2017.
Cite as 23 OTR 509 (2019) 511
when authorized by a specific statute,3 or when an appeal
already is “pending in the Magistrate Division.” See TCR
1 C. Neither of those circumstances are present here. After
reviewing the motions and response and being fully advised
of the premises, the court finds that such request should be
granted. Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dis-
miss are granted.
3
Examples of such statutes include the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act
(ORS chapter 28) or the provisions governing writs of mandamus (ORS 34.120(2)).