agreements - False or fraudulent or failure to file report or return. A. No assessment of any tax levied under the provisions of any state tax law except as provided in this section, shall be made after the expiration of three (3) years from the date the return was required to be filed or the date the return was filed, whichever period expires the later, and no proceedings by tax warrant or in court without the previous assessment for the collection of such tax shall be begun after the expiration of such period. No assessment shall be required if a report or return, signed by the taxpayer, was filed and the liability evidenced by the report or return has not been paid. If the assessment has been made within the limitation period set forth in this subsection, the tax may be collected by tax warrant or court proceeding, but only if the tax warrant is issued or the proceeding begun within ten (10) years after the assessment of the tax has become final. B. Where before the expiration of the time prescribed in subsection A of this section for the assessment of the tax, both the Tax Commission and the taxpayer have consented in writing to its assessment after such time, the tax may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed upon, and the period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent agreements in writing made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon. In those instances where the time to file a claim for a refund has not expired at the date the extension agreement is entered into, the entering into such an agreement shall automatically extend the period in which a refund may be allowed or a claim for a refund may be filed to the final date of such agreement. C. In the case of a false or fraudulent report or return, with intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in
court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time. The term “false or fraudulent” as used in this subsection shall have the same meaning as when used in Section 6501 of the Internal Revenue Code. D. In the case of a willful attempt in any manner to defeat or evade tax imposed by this title, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time. E. In the case of a failure to file a report or return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time. Added by Laws 1965, c. 414, § 2, emerg. eff. July 7, 1965. Amended by Laws 1996, c. 34, § 1, emerg. eff. April 8, 1996; Laws 1999, c. 168, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1999; Laws 2006, c. 134, § 1, eff. July 1, 2006.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Texaco Expl. & Prod., Inc., 2005 OK 52 (Okla. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Both the OTC and Texaco urge that OTC’s allegations of intentional underre-porting of gross production taxes for the purpose of evading taxes invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under 68 O.S.2001, § 223. Title 68 O.S.2001, § 223(C) provides that “[i]n the case of either a…”
Compsource Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 435 P.3d 90 (Okla. 2018).
“1 ), enacted in 2013, contained a similar provision in 85A O.S. § 31. Section 31 was amended in 2015, eliminating the restriction on pass through of MITF assessments to policyholders.”
O'Carroll v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1998 OK 6 (Okla. 1998).
· cites it 4× “¶ 6 In the briefs ordered by this Court, O’Carroll contends that § 2375(H) must be read as a narrow exception to 68 O.S.1991, § 223. 3 He urges that § 2375(H) is applicable only when the taxpayer and the IRS have agreed to extend the federal assessment period.”
Griffin Television, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 877 P.2d 588 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 5× “The issues before this Court are whether the assessment is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 223 (a) (1981), and, if not, whether the gain from the sale of the property in Arkansas should be apportioned between Arkansas and Oklahoma or…”
Neer v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1999 OK 41 (Okla. 1999).
“The Phillips case was a matter construing the assessment limitation period contained in 68 O.S.1981, § 223 (now 1996 Supp., note 13, supra) — it was not a refund claim situation covered by § 2373.”
In the Matter of the Income Tax Protest of Raytheon Co., 2022 OK 32 (Okla. 2022).
· cites it 6× “" 68 O.S.2011, § 223 ¶15 Prior opinions dealing with § 2373 do not resolve the precise issue presented here: whether an income tax return filed with an extension affects the date tax is deemed paid.”
Price v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 932 P.2d 1130 (Okla. 1997).
“*1136 It seems clear that the original intent of Section 2375 of Title 68 was to permit the Oklahoma Tax Commission to assess additional taxes at any time the IRS did so, regardless of the three-year statute of limitations at 68 O.S.1991 § 223. It seems clear also that the…”
Tulsa Tribune Co. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 768 P.2d 891 (Okla. 1989).
“The terms of 68 O.S.1981 § 223(a) provide in pertinent part: “No assessment of any tax levied under the provisions of any state tax law except as provided in the following paragraphs of this section, shall be made after the expiration of three (3) years from the date the return…”
In Re the Protest of Woods Corp., 531 P.2d 1381 (Okla. 1975).
“68 O.S.1971 § 223(a), provides no assessment of any tax shall be made after expiration of three years from the date the re *1386 turn was required to be filed, or was filed, whichever is later, and no proceedings by tax warrant or in court without previous assessment for the…”
Grasso v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 2011 OK CIV APP 37 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “" The Division further argued the assessment for the 2003 tax year was not barred by 68 O.S.2001 § 223(A) and the settlement funds were "presumptively includable" because that item was reported by the IRS to OTC.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 223(A): 1 case
Grasso v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 2011 OK CIV APP 37 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).
“" The Division further argued the assessment for the 2003 tax year was not barred by 68 O.S.2001 § 223(A) and the settlement funds were "presumptively includable" because that item was reported by the IRS to OTC.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 223(C): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Texaco Expl. & Prod., Inc., 2005 OK 52 (Okla. 2005).
“Both the OTC and Texaco urge that OTC’s allegations of intentional underre-porting of gross production taxes for the purpose of evading taxes invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under 68 O.S.2001, § 223. Title 68 O.S.2001, § 223(C) provides that “[i]n the case of either a…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 223(a): 6 cases
Tulsa Tribune Co. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 768 P.2d 891 (Okla. 1989).
“The terms of 68 O.S.1981 § 223(a) provide in pertinent part: “No assessment of any tax levied under the provisions of any state tax law except as provided in the following paragraphs of this section, shall be made after the expiration of three (3) years from the date the return…”
In Re the Protest of Woods Corp., 531 P.2d 1381 (Okla. 1975).
“68 O.S.1971 § 223(a), provides no assessment of any tax shall be made after expiration of three years from the date the re *1386 turn was required to be filed, or was filed, whichever is later, and no proceedings by tax warrant or in court without previous assessment for the…”
Griffin Television, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 877 P.2d 588 (Okla. 1994).
“The issues before this Court are whether the assessment is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 223 (a) (1981), and, if not, whether the gain from the sale of the property in Arkansas should be apportioned between Arkansas and Oklahoma or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.