David v. DOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax WILLIAM A. DAVID, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF OREGON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TC-MD 030080B DECISION AND JUDGMENT This matter is before the court on the agreement of the parties. A telephone trial was held August 5, 2003. William A. David (taxpayer) represented himself. Amy Stalnaker, Oregon Department of Revenue, represented Defendant. Taxpayer appealed Defendant s denial of an Amtrak Act exemption for the three years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Defendant contended that taxpayer failed to qualify for the exemption because his duties in Washington were not regularly scheduled, but were of an on call nature. At trial taxpayer testified that while he does have on call emergency repair duties in Washington, he also performs regularly scheduled maintenance at several customer locations in Washington. For example, taxpayer conducts yearly federal Department of Transportation inspections and Oregon transfer G service every 60-90 days on vehicles at a number of customer locations in Washington. Taxpayer estimated that he performed such scheduled maintenance duties in Washington approximately eight times per month during the years in question. Taxpayer provided current examples of the work orders for these scheduled maintenance duties. (Ptf s Ex 1.) DECISION AND JUDGMENT TC-MD 030080B 1 Upon hearing taxpayer s sworn testimony and examining the evidence submitted, Defendant s representative recommended relief be granted. The court concurs. Now, therefore, IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: For tax years 1999, 2000, and 2001, Defendant shall allow taxpayer s Amtrak Act exemption. Dated this ____ day of August, 2003. _________________________________ JEFF MATTSON MAGISTRATE THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JEFF MATTSON ON AUGUST 18, 2003. THE COURT FILED THIS DOCUMENT ON AUGUST 18, 2003. DECISION AND JUDGMENT TC-MD 030080B 2

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.