Judges: Howell
Filed Date: 3/7/1967
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Decision for plaintiff rendered March 7, 1967.
Appeal pending.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the tax commission which denied a tax exemption for certain licensed motor vehicles allegedly exempt under ORS
Plaintiff was the owner of various unlicensed motor vehicles on January 1, 1966. These vehicles were subject to taxation as personal property under ORS *Page 505
The county assessor's office had followed a practice of mailing the exemption forms to all car dealers, including the plaintiff, in January of each year. Three copies of the form were provided by the assessor. Two were to be delivered to the assessor's office and the third form was to be retained by the taxpayer. In small print two of the provided forms stated that they were to be delivered to the assessor's office beforeMay 15 and the third form stated it was to be filed before June6. Without noticing the discrepancy in the date the plaintiff filed the exemption before June 6 but after May 15, the due date under the 1965 amendment. The assessor denied the exemption because of the late filing.
The plaintiff's manager and chief bookkeeper both testified that they had no knowledge of the change in the filing date, relied on the date of June 6, as stated on one copy of the form, and assumed that the filing *Page 506 date for 1966 was the same as it had been for previous years.
The opinion and order of the tax commission denying plaintiff's appeal stated:
"Notwithstanding that the Commission particularly regrets the necessity of finding against a taxpayer who in the eyes of the Commission, has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the law based upon printed advice made available to him by a public official, there is nevertheless no way to waive the statutory requirements. * * *"
The plaintiff relies on the doctrine of quasi estoppel on the grounds that the plaintiff relied on the form supplied by the assessor and that the late filing was the result of the mistake and inadvertence of the assessor's office in supplying the wrong form.
1. Quasi estoppel is a doctrine extended by the courts to prevent a wrong being done " 'wherever, in good conscience and honest dealing' a party ought not to be permitted to repudiate his previous statements, declarations or actions." Robbins v.United States,
2. The doctrine of quasi estoppel against the government should be applied only in cases where the alternative is gross inequity. 19 Tax L Rev 489. The application of estoppel should be applied rarely because "the policy in favor of an efficient collection of the public revenue outweighs the policy of the estoppel *Page 507
doctrine in its usual and customary context. But as long as the concept of estoppel retains any validity, it is conceivable that such situations might arise." Schuster v. Commissioner,
A case fairly comparable to the instant case is Exchange andSavings Bank of Berlin v. United States,
This court agrees that the principle of quasi estoppel should be applied only in rare instances when a gross inequity will result. This is such a case. The plaintiff had no knowledge concerning the changing of the filing date from June 6 to May 15, relied on the forms supplied by the assessor's office, and although two of the copies of the forms stated the correct date, *Page 508 the other form did not. It cannot be said that plaintiff was negligent in not checking the date listed on all three copies of the form.
As the tax commission found in its order, the taxpayer acted in good faith based upon printed advice from a public official. Realizing the peculiar circumstances of this case and the inequity that would result if plaintiff's position is not sustained, it is this court's conclusion that the Clatsop County Assessor should be and is estopped from denying the exemption to the plaintiff.
No costs.
"Old or new vehicles, including house trailers, not registered and licensed under this chapter on January 1 of any year, which are being held in stock by the owner or dealer for sale or exchange, shall be reported to the county assessor by the owner and listed for ad valorem taxation but the assessor shall cancel such listing with respect to all such vehicles, except vehicles subject to taxation by ORS
R. H. Stearns Co. v. United States ( 1934 )
melba-schuster-formerly-melba-d-baker-v-commissioner-of-internal ( 1962 )
Robbins v. United States ( 1937 )
Smale & Robinson, Inc. v. United States ( 1954 )
Exchange and Savings Bank of Berlin v. United States ( 1964 )
Clendenin v. Department of Revenue ( 1977 )
Hinson v. Department of Revenue ( 1978 )
Murphy Sales Co. v. Department of Revenue ( 1993 )
Century Pontiac, Inc. v. Commission ( 1968 )
Friendly Chevrolet v. State Tax Commission ( 1968 )
Rogers v. Department of Revenue ( 1975 )
Portland Adventist Hospital v. Department of Revenue ( 1980 )
Pilgrim Turkey Packers, Inc. v. Department of Revenue ( 1971 )
Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Department of Revenue ( 1974 )
Stineff v. Department of Revenue ( 1980 )
Lymp v. Dept. of Revenue ( 1971 )