Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418 (2026)

When transmitted complaint or petition considered to be filed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      305.418 When transmitted complaint or petition considered to be filed. (1) As used in this section, “private express carrier” has the meaning given that term in ORS 293.660.

      (2) Any complaint or petition that is required by law to be filed with the Oregon Tax Court, that is otherwise sufficient for filing and that is:

 

 

 

 

      (a) Transmitted through the United States mail or a private express carrier, shall be deemed filed on the date that it was deposited in the United States mail or dispatched via a private express carrier, as shown by a post-office cancellation mark or by any other record from the United States Postal Service or a private express carrier showing the date that the appealing party initiated mailing or dispatch.

      (b) Lost in transmission through the United States mail or a private express carrier, shall be deemed filed on the date it was deposited in the United States mail or dispatched via a private express carrier if the appealing party:

      (A) Can establish by evidence satisfactory to the tax court that the complaint or petition was deposited in the United States mail or dispatched via a private express carrier and was addressed correctly to the court; and

      (B) Files with the court a duplicate of the lost complaint or petition within 90 days after it was deposited in the United States mail or dispatched via a private express carrier. [1975 c.381 §2; 1979 c.689 §3; 1993 c.612 §3; 2005 c.225 §3; 2019 c.376 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Multnomah Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 426 (Or. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Multnomah Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 426 (Or. 1997). · cites it 2× “For example, *237 ORS 305.418, which describes when a complaint is deemed “filed” with the Tax Court, provides that a complaint is filed when mailed and, if the complaint is lost in the mail, provides a method by which the appeal nevertheless may be “saved,” if the appellant can…”
Shevtsov v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 83 (Or. T.C. 2020). “” Although, according to Tax Court Rule (TCR) 9 B(5), “filing” of a paper document such as taxpayer’s complaint generally occurs when the court receives the document and “endorses or stamps” it with the date and time of receipt, ORS 305.418 overrides that rule and deems a…”
Sproul & Sproul Inc. v. Deschutes Cnty. Assessor, 18 Or. Tax 321 (Or. T.C. 2005). “…mail is indicated by a post-office cancellation mark of July 18, 2005. That latter date is the deemed date of filing. ORS 305.418.”
Health Net, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 128 (Or. T.C. 2015). “280, and ORS 305.418 to the Magistrate Division of the Oregon Tax Court.”
Am. Express Co. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2017). · cites it 10× “Postal Service by January 18, 2017, that Plaintiff is not covered by the safe harbor rule contained in ORS 305.418. Plaintiff asserts that they attempted to file the Complaint and filing fee in good faith by using UPS ground, but that there was a delay in delivery due to weather.”
SSC Prop. Holdings Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 5× “” ORS 305.418 states: “Any complaint required by law to be filed with the Oregon Tax Court that is: “(1) Transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed (a) on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing it, or (b)…”
Pub. Storage Props. VII Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 5× “” ORS 305.418 states: “Any complaint required by law to be filed with the Oregon Tax Court that is: “(1) Transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed (a) on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing it, or (b)…”
Brenner v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 200 (Or. T.C. 1982). “ORS 305.418(1). The cancellation date appearing on the envelope containing the complaint filed in the present case was April 30,1982.”
Andersen v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016). “623 or from any notice of assessment or refund denial issued by the Department of Revenue with respect to a tax imposed 1 ORS 305.418 provides that complaints received by the Oregon Tax Court “shall be deemed filed * * * on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mark…”
Earth Sci. Prods. Corp. v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016). “ORS 305.418(1) (2013). 2 When referring to a party in a written order, it is customary for the court to use the last name.”
Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016). “1 The Complaint was file stamped on January 29, 2016, however, it was deemed filed on the postmark date of January 22, 2015 pursuant to ORS 305.418(1)(a). FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 160029R 2”
Vermilion Films LLC v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016). “ORS 305.418(1). Plaintiffs appeal from an assessment of additional personal income tax for the 2011 tax year.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418(1) — 16 cases
Brenner v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 200 (Or. T.C. 1982). “ORS 305.418(1). The cancellation date appearing on the envelope containing the complaint filed in the present case was April 30,1982.”
Earth Sci. Prods. Corp. v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2016). “ORS 305.418(1) (2013). 2 When referring to a party in a written order, it is customary for the court to use the last name.”
Vermilion Films LLC v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016). “ORS 305.418(1). Plaintiffs appeal from an assessment of additional personal income tax for the 2011 tax year.”
Taylor v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2017).
Payne v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418(1)(2011) — 1 case
Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418(1)(a) — 2 cases
Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016). “1 The Complaint was file stamped on January 29, 2016, however, it was deemed filed on the postmark date of January 22, 2015 pursuant to ORS 305.418(1)(a). FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 160029R 2”
Fletcher v. Jefferson Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418(1)(b) — 3 cases
SSC Prop. Holdings Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). “” ORS 305.418 states: “Any complaint required by law to be filed with the Oregon Tax Court that is: “(1) Transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed (a) on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing it, or (b)…”
Pub. Storage Props. VII Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2013). “” ORS 305.418 states: “Any complaint required by law to be filed with the Oregon Tax Court that is: “(1) Transmitted through the United States mail, shall be deemed filed (a) on the date shown by the post-office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing it, or (b)…”
Am. Express Co. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2017). “Postal Service by January 18, 2017, that Plaintiff is not covered by the safe harbor rule contained in ORS 305.418. Plaintiff asserts that they attempted to file the Complaint and filing fee in good faith by using UPS ground, but that there was a delay in delivery due to weather.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418(2) — 1 case
Eriksen v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.418(2)(a) — 1 case
Gua v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025).
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.