Vincent v. DOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT REGULAR DIVISION Property Tax SHARRONNE VINCENT, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TC 4670 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS I. FACTS Plaintiff (taxpayer) appealed a clerical error correction made by the Columbia County Assessor that affected tax years 1997-2003 to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court. The Magistrate Division filed a Decision on November 28, 2003, denying taxpayer s complaint. In an attempt to appeal that decision, taxpayer mailed a Magistrate Division Complaint Form with a check for $25, the Magistrate Division filing fee amount, to the Magistrate Division on January 26, 2004. On January 28, 2004, the Magistrate Division advised the taxpayer of her filing error, sent the taxpayer a Regular Division complaint form and returned her check. Taxpayer mailed her Complaint to the Regular Division of the Tax Court on February 3, 2004, 67 days after the Magistrate s Decision was issued. Taxpayer s Complaint and $50 filing fee were received February 5, 2004, in the Regular Division. Defendant (the department) filed an Answer on February 27, 2004, and a Motion to Dismiss on April 8, 2004. Taxpayer responded to the department's Motion to Dismiss on June 7, 2004. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS Page 1. II. ISSUE Was the appeal filed by taxpayer in this court time barred? III. ANALYSIS The filing by taxpayer in this court was beyond the 60 days allowed by the legislature. See ORS 305.501(5). Taxpayer has offered reasons for her filing being tardy. The legislature has not provided exceptions from the time requirements for the reasons given and this court may not do so. This court has repeatedly pointed out the decisive roll of statutory time limits where, as here, the opposing party raises the time limits as an issue. As the court stated in Harding v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 166 (1985), if a litigant waits until the end of the filing period the consequence of being wrong about procedural requirements is severe. IV. CONCLUSION Taxpayer s Complaint was time barred. Now, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Department of Revenue s Motion to Dismiss is granted. Costs to neither party. Dated this ____ day of July 2004. ______________________________ Henry C. Breithaupt Judge THIS DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY JUDGE HENRY C. BREITHAUPT ON JULY 12, 2004 AND WAS FILE STAMPED ON JULY 12, 2004. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENT. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS Page 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.
