305.575
Authority of tax court to determine deficiency. In an appeal to the Oregon Tax
Court from an assessment made under ORS 305.265, the tax court has jurisdiction
to determine the correct amount of deficiency, even if the amount so determined
is greater or less than the amount of the assessment determined by the
Department of Revenue, and even if determined upon grounds other or different
from those asserted by the department, provided that claim for such additional
tax on other or different grounds is asserted by the department before or at
the hearing or any rehearing of the case before the tax court. In the event
such other or different grounds are asserted by the department, the opposing
party shall be allowed additional time, not less than 10 days, within which to
amend or otherwise plead thereto, which additional time, however, may be waived
by stipulation of the parties. The order of the tax court shall be sufficient
for the collection by the department of the entire amount found by the court to
be owing and due. [1977 c.870 §21; 1995 c.650 §30]
(Constitutional Limits
Upon Property Taxes; Effects; Determination)
Notes of Decisions
Capital One Auto Fin. Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (2018)
or · cites it 10×
“Procedurally, the court explained, the department was permitted to raise the corporate income tax under ORS 305.575, 22 OTR at 330 -31 , a statute that in part states that the Tax Court, upon adequate notice, may determine the amount of a deficiency "even if determined upon…”
Work v. Dept. of Rev. (2017)
ortc · cites it 2×
“ORS 305.575. Generally, the court is tasked with reaching the correct result.”
Hillenga v. Department of Revenue (2015)
or · cites it 4×
“When a taxpayer does appeal the assessment of a deficiency, ORS 305.575 gives the Tax Court jurisdiction to determine the correct amount of that deficiency on grounds different from or other than those asserted by the department, and in an amount either less than or greater than…”
Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2016)
ortc · cites it 3×
“Cite as 22 OTR 326 (2016) 331 notice of deficiency, the department is allowed to assert alternative grounds under ORS 305.575. The statutory pro- visions of ORS 305.”
Chart Development Corporation v. Department, Revenue (2001)
ortc
“See generally ORS 305.575. 6 The role of the department in hearing appeals was supplanted by the creation of the Magistrate Division and appeals from those decisions are heard as original, independent, and de novo proceedings.”
Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev. (2014)
ortc · cites it 2×
“The department appears to argue that the court has the authority to reopen the 2004 tax year pursuant to ORS 305.575. This position is mistaken. ORS 305.”
Scott II v. Dept. of Rev. (2018)
ortc · cites it 3×
“The Department’s Position in this Case In the department’s Answer, it asserted a claim under ORS 305.575 to adjust the amount of gambling win- nings determined by its auditor and disallow the offsetting 3 Anderson, who testified at trial, was not the same auditor who audited…”
Ellibee v. Department of Revenue (2003)
ortc · cites it 2×
“The department points out that ORS 305.575 provides this court with jurisdiction to determine the correct amount of deficiency regardless of the amount contained in the department assessment.”
Flowers v. Department of Revenue (1999)
ortc
“Therefore, pursuant to ORS 305.575, the proper assessment against Plaintiff for the 1993 tax year is $202,608 in tax, before the addition of statutory penalties and interest.”
Hillenga II v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5086) (2016)
ortc
“Although the position of the depart- ment was denominated as a counterclaim, the statutory position cited by the department was ORS 305.575. That statute grants this court jurisdiction to determine the cor- rect amount of tax for a year in dispute.”
Apple Inc. and U.S. Subsidiaries v. Dept. of Rev. (2025)
ortc · cites it 12×
“Description of Issues Litigated Defendant objects that Plaintiffs’ Form misdescribes the issues actually litigated by ignoring the fact that (1) as allowed by ORS 305.575, Defendant changed its legal theory and the amount of the tax deficiency attributable to the AppleCare/Apple…”
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.