Rasmussen v. Kroger
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed: February 2, 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
GAIL RASMUSSEN
and BETHANNE DARBY,
Petitioners,
v.
JOHN R. KROGER,
Attorney General,
State of Oregon,
Respondent.
(SC S059448)
En Banc
On objections to modified ballot title filed December 5, 2011; considered and
under advisement on December 29, 2011.
Aruna A. Masih, Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP, Portland, filed the
response for petitioners.
Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the response for
respondent. With her on the response were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Mary
H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Kevin L. Mannix, Kevin L. Mannix, P.C., Salem, filed the memorandum of
amicus curiae Robert Zielinski, Jr.
PER CURIAM
Ballot title modified and certified to the Secretary of State.
1
PER CURIAM
2
This matter is before the court following the filing by the Attorney General
3
of a modified ballot title for Initiative Petition No. 18 (2012) in response to this court's
4
decision in Rasmussen v. Kroger, 351 Or 358, ___ P3d ___ (2011). On December 12,
5
2011, Robert Zielinski, Jr., a chief petitioner on the initiative petition, sought the court's
6
permission to appear as amicus curiae to object to the Attorney General's modified ballot
7
title. See ORAP 11.30(8) (describing procedure). The court granted leave to Zielinski to
8
appear as amicus curiae and state his objections to the modified ballot title.
9
10
11
The court has considered Zielinski's objections and, with the exception of
the objection discussed below, rejects them.
One of Zielinski's objections is well-taken. The summary in the Attorney
12
General's modified ballot title states that the initiative petition, if approved by the voters,
13
will prohibit the imposition of inheritance taxes on property of a person dying on or after
14
"January 1, 2016." Zielinski correctly points out that the accurate date for that statement
15
in the summary is January 1, 2013. Petitioners Rasmussen and Darby and the Attorney
16
General agree with that objection.
17
Because of the error noted above, the Attorney General's modified ballot
18
title does not substantially comply with statutory requirements. To remedy the problem,
19
the court will modify the ballot title and certify the modified ballot title, set out in
20
Appendix A, to the Secretary of State. ORS 250.085(10)(b) (describing procedure).
21
Ballot title modified and certified to the Secretary of State.
APPENDIX A
Nullifies existing inheritance tax on estates of $1 million, prohibits taxing
family property transfers
Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote nullifies, prohibits existing inheritance tax on
estates of $1 million or more, other death-related or family property transfers; reduces
state revenue.
Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains existing inheritance tax on estates of $1
million or more; retains tax on all income-producing property transfers between family
members.
Summary: Current law imposes a one-time inheritance tax on estate of person
dying on or after January 1, 2012, if its gross value -- determined by federal laws as of
December 31, 2010 -- is at least $1 million. Current law taxes income-producing property
sales, regardless of parties' relationship. Measure nullifies existing inheritance tax, tax on
property transfers between "family members" (defined), and tax on property transferred
in connection with a person's death; prohibits imposition of such taxes on property of a
person dying on or after January 1, 2013. State may cooperate with other states and
federal government in administering their estate/inheritance taxes; permits fees on
probate, other transactions that occur following person's death. Measure reduces state
revenues; provides no replacement. Other provisions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
