Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Department of Revenue (2005)

This is a “stringent proof requirement” for which “[m]ere testimony that the government orally misguided taxpayer, is generally, by itself, insufficient.” Id. citing Hoyt Street Properties v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 319 (2005) and Schellin v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 126, 131 (2000).

(Hoyt Street Properties), 18 OTR 313, 318 (2005) (citation omitted).

This court understands “proof positive” as a “stringent proof requirement.” Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 319 (2005).

“Mere testimony that the government orally /// 5 A taxpayer must prove three elements to succeed on a claim of estoppel: “(1) misleading conduct on the part of the defendant(s); (2) taxpayer’s good faith reliance on that conduct; and (3) injury to taxpayer.” Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 318 (2005) (citations omitted).

“Mere testimony that the government orally misguided the taxpayer, is generally, by itself, insufficient.” Schellin v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 125, 131 (2000). 5 A taxpayer must prove three elements to succeed on a claim of estoppel: “(1) misleading conduct on the part of the defendant(s); (2) taxpayer's good faith reliance on that conduct; and (3) injury to taxpayer.” Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 318 (2005) (citations omitted).

In order to succeed on a claim of estoppel, taxpayer must prove three elements: “(1) misleading conduct on the part of the defendant(s); (2) taxpayer's good faith reliance on that conduct; and (3) injury to taxpayer.” Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 318 (2005) (citations omitted).

This is a “stringent proof requirement” for which “[m]ere testimony that the government orally misguided taxpayer, is generally, by itself, insufficient.” Id. (citing Hoyt Street Properties v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 319 (2005) and Schellin v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 126, 131 (2000).) The court has previously noted the “many possibilities for misunderstanding with oral communication.” Mahler v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 367, 370 (1990).

Estoppel Based on Defendant’s Error in Granting Special Assessment Estoppel requires taxpayer to prove three elements: “(1) misleading conduct on the part of the defendant(s); (2) taxpayer’s good faith reliance on that conduct; and (3) injury to taxpayer.” Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 318 (2005) (citations omitted).

Defendant’s conduct in failing to recognize the change in ownership between 2013 and 2017 cannot reasonably be considered to “neutralize the express written notice [Plaintiff] received.” Hoyt Street Properties v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 320 (2005).

Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, 318 (2005) (citations omitted).

To show that a defendant engaged in misleading conduct, "a taxpayer must offer `proof positive' of that conduct." Hoyt Street Properties , 18 OTR at 318 ( citing Johnson v. Tax Commission , 248 Or 460 , 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967)).

See Hoyt Street Properties v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313, n1 (2005) (reviewing the standard for a motion to dismiss);3 ORS 305.427 (general 3 The specific standard in Hoyt Street applies to facts alleged in the complaint, but the court here extends that review to facts alleged in the parties’ briefs because the Magistrate Division complaint form is a simple one- ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS TC-MD 230459N 2 burden of proof).4 The court considers each of the statutory avenues for…

See TCR 47 C. 4 In the context of summary judgment, the "proof positive" requirement is understood by the court to create "a more stringent proof requirement." Hoyt Street Properties , 18 OTR at 319 .

See Hoyt, 18 OTR at 318-19 (stating that a court might consider such evidence in similar circumstances). 5 For instance, taxpayers may defer filing their state personal income tax returns as long as the IRS allows them to defer filing their federal returns.

See Hoyt Street Properties LLC v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 313 , 319 (2005) (describing "proof positive" as a "stringent proof requirement" of "strong support" that the taxing authority misled the taxpayer). 7 The court therefore holds that taxpayers have failed to establish the necessary elements of estoppel.