Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.890 (2026)

Right to enter into agreement to satisfy liability in installment payments

✓ current as of May 2026

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

305.890 Right to enter into agreement to satisfy liability in installment payments. (1) A taxpayer shall have the right to enter into a written agreement with the Department of Revenue to satisfy liability for payment of any tax in installment payments if the Director of the Department of Revenue determines that the agreement will facilitate collection of such liability.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any agreement entered into by the director under this section shall remain in effect for the term of the agreement.

(3) The director may terminate any agreement entered into by the director under this section if:

(a) Any information that the taxpayer provided to the director prior to the date the agreement was entered into was inaccurate or incomplete; or

(b) The director believes that collection of any tax to which an agreement under this section relates is in jeopardy.

(4) If the director makes a determination that the financial condition of the taxpayer with whom the director has entered into an agreement under this section has significantly changed, the director may alter, modify or terminate the agreement. Action may be taken by the director under this subsection only if:

(a) Notice of such determination is provided to the taxpayer within 30 days prior to the date of such action; and

(b) Such notice includes the reasons why the director believes a significant change in the financial condition of the taxpayer has occurred.

(5) The director may alter, modify or terminate an agreement entered into by the director under this section in the case of the failure of the taxpayer to:

(a) Pay any installment at the time such installment payment is due under such agreement;

(b) Pay any other tax liability at the time such liability is due; or

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2016–2020 · leading case: Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018). · cites it 37× “875, and ORS 305.890, as well as a separate statute relating to persons who may exercise powers granted to the department’s director (ORS 305.”

Christensen v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 384 (Or. T.C. 2017). · cites it 19× “Taxpayer argued that the dispute was within the court’s jurisdiction because ORS 305.890 had a direct bearing on the collec- tion of tax liabilities.”

Perkins v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 370 (Or. T.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “620(6) provides this court with “exclusive jurisdiction to review determinations of the Department of Revenue * * * relating to the collection, enforcement, admin- istration, and distribution of local taxes under agreements entered into under” ORS 305.”

Christensen v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff’s Arguments Plaintiff argues that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction because previously decided cases that held collection activities of the Department of Revenue are not appealable to the Tax Court were “wrongly decided or can be distinguished, as they fail to…”

KAH Props., LLC v. Coos Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2020). “, 22 OTR 384 , 389–91 (2017) (holding Tax Court has jurisdiction over claim under ORS 305.890 regarding conditional right to installment agreement).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 305.890(1) — 2 cases

Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018). “875, and ORS 305.890, as well as a separate statute relating to persons who may exercise powers granted to the department’s director (ORS 305.”

Christensen v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 384 (Or. T.C. 2017). “Taxpayer argued that the dispute was within the court’s jurisdiction because ORS 305.890 had a direct bearing on the collec- tion of tax liabilities.”

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.