Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.437 (2026)

Damages for frivolous or groundless appeal or appeal to delay

✓ current as of May 2026

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

305.437 Damages for frivolous or groundless appeal or appeal to delay. (1) In any case arising under the tax laws of this state or under any law administered by the Department of Revenue, whenever it appears to the Oregon Tax Court that proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, a penalty in an amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be awarded to the Department of Revenue by the Oregon Tax Court in its judgment. The penalty so awarded shall be paid within 10 days after the judgment becomes final. If the penalty remains unpaid, the department may collect the amount awarded in the same manner as income taxes are collected under ORS 314.430.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) A taxpayer’s position is “frivolous” if there was no objectively reasonable basis for asserting the position.

(b) “Position” means any claim, defense or argument asserted by a taxpayer without regard to any other claim, defense or argument asserted by the taxpayer. [1987 c.843 §4; 1995 c.650 §6a; 2009 c.640 §5; 2023 c.313 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 81 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Dep't of Revenue v. Croslin, 201 P.3d 900 (Or. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dep't of Revenue v. Croslin, 201 P.3d 900 (Or. 2009). · cites it 42× “1 The tax court determined that, because taxpayers’ position in the magistrate division was frivolous, ORS 305.437, which we quote below, obligated the magistrate to award damages to the Department of Revenue (department) and that the magistrate had erred in declining to do so.”

Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev., 522 P.3d 522 (Or. 2022). · cites it 21× “Additionally, the court concluded that the arguments were not objectively rea- sonable and awarded the Department of Revenue a $4,000 penalty under ORS 305.437. Taxpayers appealed only the penalty award.”

Detrick v. Oregon Dep't of Revenue, 806 P.2d 682 (Or. 1991). · cites it 10× “The Tax Court ordered that the taxpayers’ complaint be dismissed and “awarded damages in the amount of $1,500 pursuant to ORS 305.437, because plaintiffs’ appeal is frivolous and groundless.”

Routledge v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 103 (Or. T.C. 2020). · cites it 7× “4 Plaintiff con- tested the Notice of Assessment in the Magistrate Division, which issued a final decision denying Plaintiff’s appeal and imposing a penalty of $1,000 under ORS 305.437. III. ISSUES (1) Is Plaintiff’s remuneration from his employer income? (2) Are penalties and…”

Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 618 (Or. T.C. 2021). · cites it 10× “Defendant Department of Revenue (the department) asserted that the claims were frivolous and sought penalties under ORS 305.437 and ORS 20.105. The court found that Plaintiff’s first two argu- ments had been addressed and found “objectively unreasonable” and “frivolous” in…”

Newton v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor, 18 Or. Tax 389 (Or. T.C. 2006). · cites it 10× “437(1) requires this court to award to the department “damages in an amount not to exceed $5,000” when it finds that a taxpayer’s position is, among other things, “frivolous or groundless.” 2 ORS 305.437(2) states that *393 a position is frivolous “if there was no objectively…”

Patton v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 256 (Or. T.C. 2005). · cites it 4× “1 The department also argues that, because the court concluded that taxpayer’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable basis, the court must also award the department damages under ORS 305.437. Taxpayer contends that basic fairness requires that he be on notice of the…”

Glasgow v. Dep't of Revenue, 340 P.3d 653 (Or. 2014). · cites it 6× “See ORS 305.437(1) (authorizing penalty for frivolous or groundless appeals to Tax Court).”

Yanez v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, 18 Or. Tax 276 (Or. T.C. 2005). · cites it 7× “4 On that basis and because it believes that taxpayers have not met their burden of proof, the county requests that this court award damages to the department pursuant to ORS 305.437. 5 Neither the county nor the department has pleaded a claim for attorney fees in this matter.”

Ormsby v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 146 (Or. T.C. 2004). · cites it 4× “Finally, the department requests that the court award damages to the department pursuant to ORS 305.437. A. Taxpayers’First Claim for Relief: Income Adjustments Taxpayers request that the court adjust their gross income as follows: (1) a reduction of $344 for the sale of duty…”

Combs v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 P.3d 584 (Or. 2000). · cites it 5× “ORS 305.437. 1 Taxpayer appealed to this court.”

Buras v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 282 (Or. T.C. 2004). · cites it 3× “Taxpayer has, however, gone forward with his claims after receiving a specific warning that the department would seek damages under ORS 305.437, along with its costs and attorney fees.”

Show all 81 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.437(1) — 25 cases

Glasgow v. Dep't of Revenue, 340 P.3d 653 (Or. 2014). “See ORS 305.437(1) (authorizing penalty for frivolous or groundless appeals to Tax Court).”

Dep't of Revenue v. Croslin, 201 P.3d 900 (Or. 2009). “1 The tax court determined that, because taxpayers’ position in the magistrate division was frivolous, ORS 305.437, which we quote below, obligated the magistrate to award damages to the Department of Revenue (department) and that the magistrate had erred in declining to do so.”

Sesma v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 29 (Or. T.C. 2002).

Magno, LLC v. Bowden, 496 P.3d 1049 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev., 522 P.3d 522 (Or. 2022). “Additionally, the court concluded that the arguments were not objectively rea- sonable and awarded the Department of Revenue a $4,000 penalty under ORS 305.437. Taxpayers appealed only the penalty award.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.437(2) — 11 cases

Combs v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 P.3d 584 (Or. 2000). “ORS 305.437. 1 Taxpayer appealed to this court.”

Newton v. Clackamas Cnty. Assessor, 18 Or. Tax 389 (Or. T.C. 2006). “437(1) requires this court to award to the department “damages in an amount not to exceed $5,000” when it finds that a taxpayer’s position is, among other things, “frivolous or groundless.” 2 ORS 305.437(2) states that *393 a position is frivolous “if there was no objectively…”

Yanez v. Washington Cnty. Assessor, 18 Or. Tax 276 (Or. T.C. 2005). “4 On that basis and because it believes that taxpayers have not met their burden of proof, the county requests that this court award damages to the department pursuant to ORS 305.437. 5 Neither the county nor the department has pleaded a claim for attorney fees in this matter.”

Beeler v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 456 (Or. T.C. 2006).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.437(2)(a) — 13 cases

Glasgow v. Dep't of Revenue, 340 P.3d 653 (Or. 2014). “See ORS 305.437(1) (authorizing penalty for frivolous or groundless appeals to Tax Court).”

Lakeview Farms, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 161 (Or. T.C. 2013).

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

Lauer v. Grant Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2020).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.437(2)(b) — 2 cases

Hays v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2017).

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.