DocketNumber: TC 2934
Judges: Byers
Filed Date: 7/11/1990
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgement granted July 11, 1990.
Affirmed
This matter is now before the court on defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendant asserts there is no dispute as to facts which entitle it to judgment. Plaintiff contends there is a dispute. Plaintiff argues that three elements must be established before he is liable to Oregon for income taxes: (1) residence, (2) earned income, and (3) federal taxable income. Plaintiff admits he is a resident of Oregon and has earned income in Oregon. Plaintiff contends the missing element is his federal taxable income.
Plaintiff argues the state "has no authority to designate a person liable for federal income tax returns or his earnings as federal net income." To do so, plaintiff contends, would be "usurping" federal authority.
Plaintiff believes that if he refuses to admit he has federal taxable income the state cannot impose its tax.1 Plaintiff is careful to point out this is not a question of state power. He concedes the state has the power to impose an income tax. His point is, as a matter of statutory construction, the state has chosen to make federal taxable income an essential element. Plaintiff contends that, until the federal government determines a person's federal taxable income, no Oregon income tax can be due. Plaintiff also maintains that until he is determined to have federal taxable income, he is not a "taxpayer."
1. Plaintiff is mistaken. ORS
2. ORS
"[T]he federal taxable income of the resident as defined in the laws of the United States, with the modifications, additions and subtractions provided in this chapter."
3, 4. ORS
A second issue raised by plaintiff pertains to delegation of authority. Plaintiff claims the assessment is void because defendant has not delegated authority in writing to the necessary employees of defendant. Plaintiff relies upon ORS
"Whenever a power is granted to the director, the power may be exercised by such officer or employee within the department as designated in writing by the director. Any such designation shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State."
5. Plaintiff's reliance is misplaced. The statute deals with powers granted to the director of the Department of Revenue, not to the department itself. The legislature has separately granted powers and responsibilities to the department as an administrative agency. In so doing, the legislature has not required written delegation to the agency's officers *Page 388 and employees. The court finds that no written delegation of agency powers is necessary for defendant's officers and agents to assess the taxes contested herein.2
The court finds there is no dispute as to the essential facts. What plaintiff views as a factual dispute is a legal issue. Accordingly, the court finds defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment should be granted.
6. Defendant requests the court to award it damages under ORS
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment be, and hereby is, granted. Defendant to recover its statutory costs.
*Page 389"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. Damages so awarded shall be paid within 10 days after the judgment becomes final. If the damages remain unpaid, the department may collect the amount awarded in the same manner as income taxes are collected under ORS
314.430 ."