Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270 (2026)

Refund of excess tax paid; claim procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

305.270 Refund of excess tax paid; claim procedure. (1) If the amount of the tax shown as due on a report or return originally filed with the Department of Revenue with respect to a tax imposed under ORS chapter 118, 308, 308A, 310, 314, 316, 317, 318 or 321, or collected pursuant to ORS 305.620, or as corrected by the department, is less than the amount theretofore paid, or if a person files a claim for refund of any tax paid to the department under such laws within the period specified in subsection (2) of this section, any excess tax paid shall be refunded by the department with interest as provided in this section and ORS 314.415.

(2) The claim shall be made on a form prescribed by the department, except that an amended report or return showing a refund due and filed within the time allowed by this subsection for the filing of a claim for refund, shall constitute a claim for refund. The claim shall be filed within the period specified in ORS 314.415 (2) for taxes imposed under ORS chapters 310, 314, 316, 317 and 318, or collected pursuant to ORS 305.620 (except where any applicable ordinance specifies another period), within the period specified in ORS 118.100 (2) for taxes imposed under ORS chapter 118 and within two years of the payment of any tax under ORS chapter 308, 308A or 321.

(3) Upon receipt of a claim for refund, or original report or return claiming a refund, the department shall either refund the amount requested or send to the claimant a notice of any proposed adjustment to the refund claim, stating the basis upon which the adjustment is made. A proposed adjustment may either increase or decrease the amount of the refund claim or result in the finding of a deficiency. If the proposed adjustment results in a determination by the department that some amount is refundable, the department may send the claimant the adjusted amount with the notice.

(4)(a) The notice of proposed adjustment shall be accompanied by a statement explaining the claimant’s right to make written objections to the refund adjustment, the claimant’s right to request a conference and the procedure for requesting a conference. The statement, and an accompanying form, shall also explain that conference determinations are routinely transmitted via regular mail and that a claimant desiring to have conference determinations transmitted by certified mail may do so by indicating on the form the claimant’s preference for certified mail and by returning the form with the claimant’s written objections as described in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(b) The claimant may, within 30 days of the date of the notice of proposed adjustment, advise the department in writing of objections to the refund adjustment and may request a conference with the department, which shall be held within one year of the date of the notice. The department shall notify the claimant of a time and place for the conference, and appoint a conference officer to meet with the claimant for an informal discussion of the claim. After the conference, the conference officer shall send a determination of the matter to the claimant. The determination letter shall be sent by regular mail, or by certified mail if the claimant has indicated a preference for transmission of the determination by certified mail. The department shall issue either a notice of refund denial or payment of any amount found to be refundable, together with any applicable interest provided by this section. If the conference officer determines that a deficiency exists, the department shall issue a notice of assessment.

(5) If no conference is requested, and the adjustments have not resulted in the finding of a deficiency, the following shall apply:

(a) If written objections have been made by the claimant, the department shall consider the objections, determine any issues raised and send the claimant a notice of refund denial or payment of any amount found to be refundable, together with any interest provided by this section.

(b) If no written objections are made, the notice of any proposed adjustment shall be final after the period for requesting a conference or filing written objections has expired.

(6) If no conference is requested, and the notice of proposed adjustment has asserted a deficiency, the department shall consider any objections made by the person denied the refund, make a determination of any issues raised, pay any refunds found due, with applicable interest, or assess any deficiency and mail a notice thereof within one year from the date of the notice of deficiency, unless an extension of time is agreed upon as described in subsection (7) of this section.

(7) If, prior to the expiration of any period of time prescribed in subsection (6) of this section for giving of notice of assessment, the department and the person consent in writing to the deficiency being assessed after the expiration of such prescribed period, such deficiency may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent agreements in writing made before the expiration of the period agreed upon.

(8) If the department refunds the amount requested as provided in subsection (3) of this section, without examination or audit of the refund claim, the department shall give notice of this to the claimant at the time of making the refund. Thereafter, the department shall have one year in which to examine or audit the refund claim, and send the notice of proposed adjustment provided for in subsection (3) of this section, in addition to any time permitted in ORS 314.410 or 314.415.

(9) The failure to hold a requested conference within the one-year period prescribed in subsection (4) of this section shall not invalidate any assessment of deficiency made within the one-year period pursuant to subsection (8) of this section or within any extension of time made pursuant to subsection (7) of this section, but shall invalidate any assessment of interest or penalties attributable to the deficiency. After an assessment has been made, the department and the person assessed may still hold a conference within 90 days from the date of assessment. If a conference is held, the 90-day period under ORS 305.280 (2) shall run from the date of the conference officer’s written determination of the issues.

(10) The claimant may appeal any notice of proposed adjustment, refund denial or notice of assessment in the manner provided in ORS 305.404 to 305.560. The failure to file written objections or to request or have a conference shall not affect the rights of appeal so provided. All notices and determinations shall set forth rights of appeal. [1977 c.870 §4; 1979 c.691 §1; 1985 c.61 §1; 1985 c.266 §5; 1987 c.512 §3; 1989 c.626 §2; 1991 c.67 §75; 1995 c.650 §28; 1997 c.99 §§29,30; 1999 c.224 §2; 1999 c.314 §89; 2005 c.48 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 122 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Patton v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 111 (Or. T.C. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patton v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 111 (Or. T.C. 2005). · cites it 9× “That payment could be viewed as having occurred on October 17, 2001, when the department garnished bank accounts of taxpayer. Taxpayer’s appeal to this court came within two years of the garnishment.”

Ragsdale v. Dep't of Revenue, 823 P.2d 971 (Or. 1992). · cites it 7× “See ORS 305.270 and 314.415. The taxpayer’s claims are these: 1.”

Fackler v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 67 (Or. T.C. 2004). · cites it 10× “280 do not apply to an appeal by Edwin Fackler, it may be that an appeal by him from the denial of a timely claim for refund under ORS 305.270 could be taken. 7 However, the court has not been presented with an appeal from a denial of a refund claim made by Edwin Fackler and…”

Atkins v. Dep't of Revenue, 894 P.2d 449 (Or. 1995). · cites it 7× “765, but rather under Oregon’s omnibus tax refund statute, ORS 305.270. 3 However, this court in Ragsdale v.”

Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). · cites it 4× “410(3)(c)—or an “adjust- ment” that would “decrease the amount of the refund claim” as is done in ORS 305.270(3). However, when an assess- ment of tax was not so limited, and went beyond the amount of a refund claimed, the Oregon statutes speak of a “defi- ciency,” the ultimate…”

Fields v. Dep't of Revenue, 19 Or. Tax 547 (Or. T.C. 2009). · cites it 4× “Taxpayers then filed an amended return that served as a claim for refund under ORS 305.270. 1 The claim for refund was premised on the position that the Oregon statutes subjecting the interest on sister state bonds to Oregon tax were unconstitutional under provisions of the…”

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). · cites it 38× “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

Atkins v. Dep't of Revenue, 13 Or. Tax 65 (Or. T.C. 1994). · cites it 7× “Based on Davis, Oregon taxpayers who had paid state income tax on their federal retirement income filed written claims for refunds under ORS 305.270 and ORS 314.415. 6 In Ragsdale v.”

Health Net, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 128 (Or. T.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “1 (5) This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ORS 305.270(10) and ORS 305.501(1). (6) This is an action for refund of corporation excise taxes paid by taxpayer in the amount of $458,369, plus interest, for the tax years ending December 31, 2005; December 31,…”

Morris v. Dep't of Revenue, 889 P.2d 1294 (Or. 1995). “His appeal to the director was not timely under ORS 305.”

Pendell v. Dep't of Revenue, 847 P.2d 846 (Or. 1993). “ORS 305.270(1); ORS 314.415(l)(a). However, ORS 305.”

Fields v. Dep't of Revenue, 10 Or. Tax 458 (Or. T.C. 1987). · cites it 5× “The defendant based its determination on ORS 305.270 which provides: “(1) If the amount of the tax shown as due on a report or return originally filed with the department with respect to a tax imposed under ORS chapter 118, 119, 308, 310, 314, 316, 317,318,321 or 477, or…”

Show all 122 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(1) — 11 cases

Ragsdale v. Dep't of Revenue, 823 P.2d 971 (Or. 1992). “See ORS 305.270 and 314.415. The taxpayer’s claims are these: 1.”

Pendell v. Dep't of Revenue, 847 P.2d 846 (Or. 1993). “ORS 305.270(1); ORS 314.415(l)(a). However, ORS 305.”

DeGroat v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 254 (Or. T.C. 2019).

Atkins v. Dep't of Revenue, 13 Or. Tax 65 (Or. T.C. 1994). “Based on Davis, Oregon taxpayers who had paid state income tax on their federal retirement income filed written claims for refunds under ORS 305.270 and ORS 314.415. 6 In Ragsdale v.”

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(10) — 5 cases

Health Net, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 128 (Or. T.C. 2015). “1 (5) This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ORS 305.270(10) and ORS 305.501(1). (6) This is an action for refund of corporation excise taxes paid by taxpayer in the amount of $458,369, plus interest, for the tax years ending December 31, 2005; December 31,…”

Fackler v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 67 (Or. T.C. 2004). “280 do not apply to an appeal by Edwin Fackler, it may be that an appeal by him from the denial of a timely claim for refund under ORS 305.270 could be taken. 7 However, the court has not been presented with an appeal from a denial of a refund claim made by Edwin Fackler and…”

Ecumenical Ministries v. Dep't of Revenue, 12 Or. Tax 302 (Or. T.C. 1992).

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2026).

Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(2) — 8 cases

Patton v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 111 (Or. T.C. 2005). “That payment could be viewed as having occurred on October 17, 2001, when the department garnished bank accounts of taxpayer. Taxpayer’s appeal to this court came within two years of the garnishment.”

DeArmond v. Dep't of Revenue, 968 P.2d 1280 (Or. 1998).

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

Kent v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 356 (Or. T.C. 1983).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(3) — 11 cases

Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “410(3)(c)—or an “adjust- ment” that would “decrease the amount of the refund claim” as is done in ORS 305.270(3). However, when an assess- ment of tax was not so limited, and went beyond the amount of a refund claimed, the Oregon statutes speak of a “defi- ciency,” the ultimate…”

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

Kent v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 356 (Or. T.C. 1983).

Simson v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 89 (Or. T.C. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(4) — 2 cases

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

Edwards v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2019).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(4)(a) — 1 case

Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(4)(b) — 18 cases

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

Cruz v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2019).

Bliss-Calderon v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015).

Baughn v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(5) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(5)(a) — 2 cases

Alexander v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2026).

Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(5)(b) — 15 cases

Alexander v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2026).

Bliss-Calderon v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015).

Reynolds v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2018).

Wright v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2019).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(6) — 3 cases

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

Skadsen v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2026).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.270(8) — 1 case

Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 539 (Or. T.C. 2018). “415, to which ORS 305.270 makes reference, contains a similar provision.”

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.