Citation Numbers: 3 Or. Tax 301
Judges: EDWARD H. HOWELL, Judge.
Filed Date: 10/21/1968
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Decision rendered for defendant October 21, 1968. The first issue in this case involves the fair market value of the Sutherlin Hotel which was owned by the plaintiffs and donated by them in 1963 to the Lower Umpqua Hospital. Plaintiffs claimed a charitable contribution of $65,000 as the fair market value of the hotel. The tax commission found the true cash value of the hotel in 1963 to be $52,000 and assessed a deficiency against the plaintiffs.
The testimony indicated that the hotel had been constructed in 1911 and consisted of 42 rooms on the second floor with space rented to two stores on the first floor. *Page 302
The two witnesses for the plaintiffs placed a value of $65,000 and $60,000, respectively, on the old hotel building. The Douglas County Assessor had valued the building at $52,000 for 1963. The commission concurred in this amount. Considering all the testimony concerning the transfer of the hotel and its fair market value, including the assessor's valuation, it is the court's conclusion that the valuation of $52,000 found by the commission represents the true cash value of the property in 1963.
The second question presented is whether the plaintiffs made a timely election to receive special treatment of their capital gains received in 1963.
In 1963 ORS
"(1) The taxpayer in order to qualify for special treatment of his capital gains shall make an election to do so by making a statement in substantially the following form on his tax return:
" 'I elect to report the following described capital gains for special treatment pursuant to ORS
316.405 to316.450 (listing the capital gain).'"(2) The election shall be made within one year after the close of the tax year in which any part of the capital gain is realized. If the taxpayer elects to have special treatment of his capital gains for a tax year, the provisions of ORS
316.436 to316.450 shall apply to that tax year." (Emphasis supplied.)
Plaintiffs' tax return for 1963 should have been filed by April 15, 1964. However, plaintiffs received an extension until October 15, 1964. Due to some misunderstanding between plaintiffs and their accountant their 1963 return was not filed until August 17, 1965.
Because ORS
The plaintiffs seek to avoid the requirement of the statute by contending that the extension of time for filing their return to October 15, 1964, also extended their time for reporting the sale for special capital gains treatment for one year after the extension, or one year from October 15, 1964.
1, 2. The contention has been previously resolved against the plaintiffs in Crawford v. Commission,
The order of the commission is affirmed. *Page 304