Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.425 (2026)
Proceedings to be without jury and de novo; issues reviewable; rules of procedure
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
305.425 Proceedings to be without jury and de novo; issues reviewable; rules of procedure. (1) All proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court shall be original, independent proceedings and shall be tried without a jury and de novo.
(2) If a statute provides for an appeal to or a review by the court of an order, act, omission or determination of the Department of Revenue, a local government in its administration of a tax described in ORS 305.410 (3), a property value appeals board or of any other administrative agency, the proceeding shall be an original proceeding in the nature of a suit in equity to set aside such order or determination or correct the act or omission. The time within which the statute provides that the proceeding shall be brought is a period of limitations and is not jurisdictional.
(3) All hearings and proceedings before the tax court judge shall be in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure promulgated by the court, which shall conform, as far as practical to the rules of equity practice and procedure in this state. [1961 c.533 §16; 1965 c.6 §3; 1967 c.78 §9; 1973 c.484 §7; 1977 c.870 §29; 1981 s.s. c.1 §23; 1995 c.650 §19; 1997 c.541 §60; 2023 c.29 §4; 2023 c.313 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 179
cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Work v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2017).
Work v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2017). “In addition, this court has made clear that, even though parties are entitled to an “original” and “indepen- dent” proceeding in the Regular Division under ORS 305.425, “ ‘original’ has never been construed to mean that an act or failure to act below should be ignored by the…”
Reed v. Dep't of Revenue, 798 P.2d 235 (Or. 1990). “ORS 305.425(1). [8] Although the burden of proof falls on the taxpayer to demonstrate that the Department's earlier decision was *238 wrong, a trial de novo requires the Tax Court to consider all properly admitted evidence and reach its own independent conclusions.”
Work v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 P.3d 375 (Or. 2018). “7 **754 The question that the department raises poses an issue of statutory construction, and the department finds a complete answer to that question in the text of ORS 305.425(1). That statute provides: "All proceedings before the judge of the tax court shall be original,…”
Vill. at Main Street Phase II, LLC v. Dep't of Revenue, 339 P.3d 428 (Or. 2014). “” ORS 305.425(1). The Regular Division is to “consider all properly admitted evidence and reach its own independent conclusions” in any given case.”
Multnomah Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 426 (Or. 1997). “However, the Tax Court did hold that the period is a statute of limitations under ORS 305.425(2). That statute provides: “If a statute provides for an appeal to or a review by the court of an order or determination of the Department of Revenue or of any other administrative…”
Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 331 (Or. T.C. 2001). “The terms “original” and “independent” were added to ORS 305.425 by the 1965 Legislature to ensure taxpayers an impartial hearing in Tax Court.”
Mid Oil Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 686 P.2d 1020 (Or. 1984). “” The department contends that this is an incorrect interpretation of ORS 305.425. It observes that the statute provides that tax court proceedings “shall be original, independent proceedings and shall be tried without a jury and de novo,” ORS 305.”
South Beach Marina, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 724 P.2d 788 (Or. 1986). “” Because of this concession by the Department and because ORS 305.425(3) requires that the issues of fact and law before the Tax Court be limited to those raised by the parties in the appeal to the Department, the Port and the Marina properly framed the issue at trial as…”
Wihtol I v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 260 (Or. T.C. 2013). “To start with, the court considers it important to point out that the Tax Court Rules are adopted pursuant to statutory authority found in ORS 305.425(3), which states: “All hearings and proceedings before the tax court judge shall be in accordance with the rules of practice and…”
Vill. at Main Street Phase II, LLC v. Dep't of Revenue, 387 P.3d 374 (Or. 2016). “” ORS 305.425(1); see also Reed v. Dept. of Rev.”
Garrison v. Dep't of Revenue, 200 P.3d 126 (Or. 2008). “TCR 1 B and 1 E, which the Tax Court adopted pursuant to its rulemaking authority, ORS 305.425(3), 2 require a plaintiff to submit the filing fee to the Tax Court at the time of the filing of the complaint, and, indeed, that the clerk need not “file” the complaint unless it is…”
Salisbury v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 497 (Or. T.C. 2021). “Regular Division initially confines its review to mag- istrate’s procedural decision The court considers it well settled that the Regular Division’s initial task in reviewing a magistrate’s decision of dismissal is to determine whether that dismissal was proper. The department…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.425(1) — 72 cases
Reed v. Dep't of Revenue, 798 P.2d 235 (Or. 1990). “ORS 305.425(1). [8] Although the burden of proof falls on the taxpayer to demonstrate that the Department's earlier decision was *238 wrong, a trial de novo requires the Tax Court to consider all properly admitted evidence and reach its own independent conclusions.”
Work v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 P.3d 375 (Or. 2018). “7 **754 The question that the department raises poses an issue of statutory construction, and the department finds a complete answer to that question in the text of ORS 305.425(1). That statute provides: "All proceedings before the judge of the tax court shall be original,…”
Vill. at Main Street Phase II, LLC v. Dep't of Revenue, 339 P.3d 428 (Or. 2014). “” ORS 305.425(1). The Regular Division is to “consider all properly admitted evidence and reach its own independent conclusions” in any given case.”
Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 331 (Or. T.C. 2001). “The terms “original” and “independent” were added to ORS 305.425 by the 1965 Legislature to ensure taxpayers an impartial hearing in Tax Court.”
Salisbury v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 497 (Or. T.C. 2021). “Regular Division initially confines its review to mag- istrate’s procedural decision The court considers it well settled that the Regular Division’s initial task in reviewing a magistrate’s decision of dismissal is to determine whether that dismissal was proper. The department…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.425(2) — 26 cases
Work v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2017). “In addition, this court has made clear that, even though parties are entitled to an “original” and “indepen- dent” proceeding in the Regular Division under ORS 305.425, “ ‘original’ has never been construed to mean that an act or failure to act below should be ignored by the…”
Multnomah Cnty. v. Dep't of Revenue, 935 P.2d 426 (Or. 1997). “However, the Tax Court did hold that the period is a statute of limitations under ORS 305.425(2). That statute provides: “If a statute provides for an appeal to or a review by the court of an order or determination of the Department of Revenue or of any other administrative…”
Fellman v. Dep't of Revenue, 640 P.2d 1388 (Or. 1982).
Sanok v. Grimes, 662 P.2d 693 (Or. 1983).
Curtis v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 414 (Or. T.C. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.425(3) — 43 cases
South Beach Marina, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 724 P.2d 788 (Or. 1986). “” Because of this concession by the Department and because ORS 305.425(3) requires that the issues of fact and law before the Tax Court be limited to those raised by the parties in the appeal to the Department, the Port and the Marina properly framed the issue at trial as…”
Wihtol I v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 260 (Or. T.C. 2013). “To start with, the court considers it important to point out that the Tax Court Rules are adopted pursuant to statutory authority found in ORS 305.425(3), which states: “All hearings and proceedings before the tax court judge shall be in accordance with the rules of practice and…”
Garrison v. Dep't of Revenue, 200 P.3d 126 (Or. 2008). “TCR 1 B and 1 E, which the Tax Court adopted pursuant to its rulemaking authority, ORS 305.425(3), 2 require a plaintiff to submit the filing fee to the Tax Court at the time of the filing of the complaint, and, indeed, that the clerk need not “file” the complaint unless it is…”
Mid Oil Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 686 P.2d 1020 (Or. 1984). “” The department contends that this is an incorrect interpretation of ORS 305.425. It observes that the statute provides that tax court proceedings “shall be original, independent proceedings and shall be tried without a jury and de novo,” ORS 305.”
Vill. at Main Street Phase II, LLC v. Dep't of Revenue, 387 P.3d 374 (Or. 2016). “” ORS 305.425(1); see also Reed v. Dept. of Rev.”
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.