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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.422 (2026)

Waiver of penalty for failure to timely file property return

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      305.422 Waiver of penalty for failure to timely file property return. If a penalty under ORS 308.295 or 308.296 for the failure to timely file a real, combined or personal property return as required by ORS 308.290 is the subject of an appeal to the tax court, the court may waive the liability for all or a portion of the penalty upon a proper showing of good and sufficient cause. [2001 c.303 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: 3D Logics, LLC v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 220439R (Or. T.C. Mar. 8, 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
3D Logics, LLC v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 220439R (Or. T.C. Mar. 8, 2023). · cites it 5× “296 and, if so, whether Plaintiff made a proper showing of good and sufficient cause under ORS 305.422 permitting the court to waive the penalties.”
Stompbox Music Co. v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 180377N (Or. T.C. Mar. 13, 2019). · cites it 4× “The court is authorized under ORS 305.422 to waive penalties for “good and sufficient cause.”
Kintz v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, 17 Or. Tax 200 (Or. T.C. 2002). · cites it 4× “296, lowering the penalty from 100 percent to 50 percent, it enacted ORS 305.422 (2001). That law permits the Tax Court, in appeals under ORS 311.”
Docekal & Moyer LLC v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110863C (Or. T.C. Apr. 10, 2012). · cites it 4× “ORS 305.422 does not apply as no penalty is at issue here.”
Lardo Bakery, LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 160386R (Or. T.C. Aug. 15, 2017). · cites it 2× “ORS 305.422 grants the Tax Court the ability to waive the taxpayer’s liability for all or a portion of a late filing penalty “upon a proper showing of good and sufficient cause.”
Skadsen v. Dept. of Rev., No. TC-MD 250399G (Or. T.C. Apr. 6, 2026). · cites it 2× “270(6), ORS 305.422, ORS 305.145, and ORS 305.801, asking the court to “advise [her] if any of these rules can apply to [her] case.”
Elim Sushi v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 091318D (Or. T.C. June 4, 2010). · cites it 3× “" ORS 305.422. A "showing of good and sufficient cause" requires that an extraordinary circumstance occurred that was "beyond the control of the taxpayer.”
Pac. Coast Invest. v. Clatsop Cty. Ass., No. TC-MD 100367D (Or. T.C. Mar. 16, 2011). · cites it 3× “*Page 4 ORS 305.422 provides that "[i]f a penalty under ORS 308.”
Cocina Mexico Lindo v. Washington Cty. Ass., No. TC-MD 091420C (Or. T.C. Feb. 9, 2011). · cites it 3× “The standard by which the court evaluates the request for waiver is *Page 9 found in ORS 305.422. That statute provides, in relevant part that "the court may waive the liability for all or a portion of the penalty upon a proper showing of good and sufficient cause.”
Sushi v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 091356D (Or. T.C. June 4, 2010). · cites it 3× “" ORS 305.422. A "showing of good and sufficient cause" requires that an extraordinary circumstance occurred that was "beyond the control of the taxpayer.”
KAH Props., LLC v. Coos Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 200284G (Or. T.C. Dec. 10, 2020). “ORS 305.422. Generally, persons who are “aggrieved by and affected by an act, omission, order or determination” of a tax collector or other taxing authority may appeal to this court if they have no other statutory right of appeal for their grievance.”
Precision Powder v. Clackamas Cty Assr., No. TC-MD 070690D (Or. T.C. Apr. 4, 2008). “Clackamas County Assessor , TC-MD No 060641C (Oct 31, 2006) (finding that plaintiff's "[L]ack of knowledge of the filing requirement brings him outside the definition of good and sufficient cause, and precludes him from relief under ORS 305.422."); see also Cup of Joe v. Coos…”
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.