rare application doctrine (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

rare application doctrine in Oregon

15 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Johnson v. State Tax Commissiongreen
or · 1967 · cited in 15 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1969–2016
2 sentences

2016However, “[t]he policy of efficient and effective tax collection makes the doctrine of rare application.” Id. at 463 . 342 Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

2010(Ptfs' Ex 5-6.) 2 Plaintiffs state that when they contacted the mortgage company on March 25, 2008, they were told that the property taxes were refunded because they "were `exempt' from paying property tax." (Ptfs' Ex 2-1.) 2 "The policy of efficient and effective tax collection makes the doctrine of rare application." Johnson v. Tax Commission , 248 Or 460 , 463 , 435 P2d 302 (1967). 3 There are at least two cases considering oral communications that were decided in the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court: Weseman v. Hood River County Assessor , TC-MD No 060723D (Mar 2, 2007); Semler

215
Slocum v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1986 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Harris v. Commissiongreen
ortc · 1969 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Portland Adventist Hospital v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1980 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Pilgrim Turkey Packers, Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1971 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Liquid Air Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1979 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1974 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Gains v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1982 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Pacific Conference of the Evangelical Church, North America v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1978 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11
Hinson v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1978 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000It could only be applied when there is proof positive that the collector has misinformed the individual taxpayer and the taxpayer has a particularly valid reason for relying on the misinformation and that it would be inequitable to a high degree to compel the taxpayer to conform to the true requirement.” Johnson v. Tax Commission, 248 Or 460, 463-64 , 435 P2d 302 (1967), quoted in Harris v. Comm., 3 OTR 440, 442 (1969); Pilgrim Turkey Packers v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 498, 502 (1971); Cascade Manor, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 482, 488 (1974); Hinson v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 397, 405 (1978); Pac

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Johnson v. State Tax Commission green
ortc · 1967
1 sentence

1974(This may explain the use of the term “quasi estoppel,” used by the judge of the Oregon Tax Court in the decision of Johnson v. Commission, 2 OTR 504 (1967), aff'd at 248 Or 460 (1967).) As stated in Johnson v. Tax Commission, supra, at 468-464: “* * * The policy of efficient and effective tax collection makes the doctrine of rare application.

11974–1974

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check