Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410 (2026)

Time limit for notice of deficiency; circumstances when claim for refund may be reduced after time limit; time limit for refund or notice of deficiency for pass-through entity items

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      314.410 Time limit for notice of deficiency; circumstances when claim for refund may be reduced after time limit; time limit for refund or notice of deficiency for pass-through entity items. (1) At any time within three years after the return was filed, the Department of Revenue may give notice of deficiency as prescribed in ORS 305.265.

      (2) If the department finds that gross income equal to 25 percent or more of the gross income reported has been omitted from the taxpayer’s return, notice of the deficiency may be given at any time within five years after the return was filed.

      (3) If the department finds that a return reports or reflects the use of a listed transaction, as defined in ORS 314.307, and that use of that listed transaction results in a deficiency in tax paid, notice of that deficiency may be given at any time within nine years after the return was filed.

      (4)(a) The limitations to the giving of notice of a deficiency provided in this section do not apply to a deficiency resulting from false or fraudulent returns, or in cases where no return has been filed.

      (b)(A) If the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or other authorized officer of the federal government or an authorized officer of another state’s taxing authority makes a change or correction as described in ORS 314.380 (2)(a)(A) and, as a result of the change or correction, an assessment of tax or issuance of a refund is permitted under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code or applicable law of the other state, or pursuant to an agreement between the taxpayer and the federal or other state taxing authority that extends the period in which an assessment of federal or other state tax may be made, then notice of a deficiency under any Oregon law imposing tax upon or measured by income for the corresponding tax year may be mailed within two years after the department is notified by the taxpayer or the commissioner or other tax official of the correction, or within the applicable period prescribed in subsections (1) to (3) of this section, whichever period expires later.

      (B) A notice of deficiency mailed pursuant to this paragraph may assert any adjustment necessary to arrive at the correct amount of Oregon taxable income and Oregon tax liability for the tax year for which the federal or other state change or correction is made.

      (c) If the taxpayer files an original or amended federal or other state return as described in ORS 314.380 (2)(a)(B), the department may reduce any claim for refund as a result of a change in Oregon tax liability related to the original or amended federal or other state return, but may not give notice of a deficiency for an adjustment to Oregon tax liability following the expiration of the applicable period prescribed in subsections (1) to (3) of this section and paragraph (a) of this subsection.

      (5) The tax deficiency must be assessed and notice of tax assessment mailed to the taxpayer or authorized representative, who is authorized in writing, within one year from the date of the notice of deficiency unless an extension of time is agreed upon as prescribed in subsection (7) of this section.

      (6) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, the period for the assessment of any deficiency attributable to any part of the gain realized upon the sale or exchange of the taxpayer’s principal residence, as provided in section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code (as in effect prior to the repeal of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34)), does not expire prior to the expiration of three years from the date the department is notified by the taxpayer of:

      (a) The cost of purchasing the new residence which the taxpayer claims results in nonrecognition of any part of such gain;

      (b) The taxpayer’s intention not to purchase a new residence; or

      (c) A failure to purchase a new residence within the period prescribed in section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code (as in effect prior to the repeal of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34)).

      (7) If, prior to the expiration of any period of time prescribed in this section for giving of notice of deficiency or of assessment, the department and the taxpayer consent in writing to the notice of deficiency being mailed or deficiency being assessed after the expiration of such prescribed period, notice of such deficiency may be mailed or the deficiency assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent agreements in writing made before the expiration of the period agreed upon.

      (8) In the case of a deficiency attributable to the application to the taxpayer of a net operating loss carryback, notice of such deficiency may be mailed at any time before the expiration of the period within which notice of a deficiency for the taxable year of the net operating loss which results in such carryback may be mailed.

      (9) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, if any taxpayer agreed with the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the taxing authority of another state for an extension, or renewals thereof, of the period for giving notices of deficiencies and assessing deficiencies in income tax for any year, the period for mailing notices of deficiencies of tax for such years and the period for filing a claim for refund under ORS 314.380 (2)(b) shall expire on the later of:

      (a) The expiration of an applicable period described in subsections (1) to (8) or (10) of this section; or

      (b) Six months after the date of the expiration of the agreed period for assessing a deficiency.

      (10)(a) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section and ORS 314.415, the period for claiming a refund or giving a notice of deficiency with respect to an item that is shown or required to be shown on a taxpayer’s return and that is attributable to a pass-through entity does not expire prior to three years from the date of the filing of the pass-through entity return to which the item on the taxpayer’s return relates.

      (b) As used in this subsection, “pass-through entity” means any entity that is recognized as a separate entity for federal income tax purposes, for which the owners are required to report income, gains, losses, deductions or credits from the entity for federal income tax purposes. [1957 c.632 §14 (enacted in lieu of 316.610 and 317.410); 1959 c.212 §2; 1959 c.591 §20; subsection (8) derived from 1959 c.212 §3 and 1959 c.591 §21; 1963 c.509 §2; 1963 c.627 §1 (referred and rejected); 1969 c.405 §1; 1969 c.493 §§88,88a; 1971 c.507 §1; 1977 c.870 §43; 1983 c.162 §53; 1985 c.602 §5; 1993 c.726 §14; 1997 c.100 §3; 1999 c.74 §3; 1999 c.90 §4a; 2001 c.9 §5; 2005 c.54 §1; 2007 c.568 §18]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012).
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). · cites it 80× “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
Swarens v. Dep't of Revenue, 883 P.2d 853 (Or. 1994). · cites it 38× “ORS 314.410(1). ORS 314.410(3) 1 provides for an exception, however: “If the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or other authorized officer of the Federal Government makes a correction resulting in a change in tax for state * * * income tax purposes, then notice of a deficiency…”
Hillenga v. Dep't of Revenue, 361 P.3d 598 (Or. 2015). · cites it 17× ““If the department questioned the accuracy of taxpayers’ 2004 return, the time to raise those questions was within the limits set by ORS 314.410.” 21 OTR at 420 . The department sought reconsideration.”
U.S. Bancorp & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 232 (Or. T.C. 2003). · cites it 23× “410(3) expired before the State Extension became effective and the NODs for 1988 and 1989 are untimely under ORS 314.410 because no other limitations provision protected the department’s actions.”
Anaconda Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 565 P.2d 1084 (Or. 1977). · cites it 10× “ORS 314.410. The taxpayer may then appeal to the department where he is entitled to a formal hearing.”
Dept. of Rev. v. Washington Fed., Inc., 20 Or. Tax 507 (Or. T.C. 2012). · cites it 14× “2 It is also important to note the effect of the time limit stated in ORS 314.410 remaining open. If that time for issuance of a notice of deficiency has not expired, the defi- ciency asserted in Oregon is not limited to the item changed or corrected by another state.”
Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2014). · cites it 5× “If the department questioned the accuracy of tax- payers’ 2004 return, the time to raise those questions was within the limits set by ORS 314.410. As it stands, the department’s conference officer originally allowed tax- payers’ NOL carryforward for 2006, but ruled that it was…”
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 P.3d 85 (Or. 2004). · cites it 5× “410(6) (providing that parties may enter extension agreement before expiration of any period of time prescribed for giving of notice of deficiency); see also generally ORS 314.410(1) (providing that department generally has three years after return is filed to issue notice of…”
Brenner v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 299 (Or. T.C. 1983). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff alleges that: (1) The defendant’s “Second Notice of Assessment,” dated December 31, 1980, for each tax year, was beyond the statutory three-year period of assessment, as described in ORS 314.410, for the tax year 1976 (PI Comp, ¶ XIII); (2) The Department of…”
Curtis v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 414 (Or. T.C. 2004). · cites it 3× “Taxpayer asserts this limitation is found in ORS 314.410(3). *422 However, taxpayer, who chose not to file Oregon returns, ignores the provision of ORS 314.”
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue, 316 P.3d 276 (Or. 2013). · cites it 2× “The legislature amended ORS 314.410 in 2007. Or Laws 2007, ch 568, § 18.”
Olympia Brewing Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 7 Or. Tax 301 (Or. T.C. 1977). · cites it 13× “The first issue presented is stated in the defendant’s opinion as "concerning the Department’s authority to issue a proposed assessment [of additional income taxes] after a prior proposed assessment had been issued and not assessed within one year, where the second proposed…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(1) — 28 cases
Hillenga v. Dep't of Revenue, 361 P.3d 598 (Or. 2015). ““If the department questioned the accuracy of taxpayers’ 2004 return, the time to raise those questions was within the limits set by ORS 314.410.” 21 OTR at 420 . The department sought reconsideration.”
U.S. Bancorp & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 232 (Or. T.C. 2003). “410(3) expired before the State Extension became effective and the NODs for 1988 and 1989 are untimely under ORS 314.410 because no other limitations provision protected the department’s actions.”
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue, 316 P.3d 276 (Or. 2013). “The legislature amended ORS 314.410 in 2007. Or Laws 2007, ch 568, § 18.”
Swarens v. Dep't of Revenue, 883 P.2d 853 (Or. 1994). “ORS 314.410(1). ORS 314.410(3) 1 provides for an exception, however: “If the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or other authorized officer of the Federal Government makes a correction resulting in a change in tax for state * * * income tax purposes, then notice of a deficiency…”
Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2014). “If the department questioned the accuracy of tax- payers’ 2004 return, the time to raise those questions was within the limits set by ORS 314.410. As it stands, the department’s conference officer originally allowed tax- payers’ NOL carryforward for 2006, but ruled that it was…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(10) — 2 cases
Tomseth v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016).
Reedal v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(10)(a) — 1 case
Tomseth v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(2) — 4 cases
Hillenga v. Dept. of Rev., 21 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2014). “If the department questioned the accuracy of tax- payers’ 2004 return, the time to raise those questions was within the limits set by ORS 314.410. As it stands, the department’s conference officer originally allowed tax- payers’ NOL carryforward for 2006, but ruled that it was…”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 338 (Or. T.C. 2001).
Indus. Air Prods. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 4 Or. Tax 103 (Or. T.C. 1970).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3) — 20 cases
Swarens v. Dep't of Revenue, 883 P.2d 853 (Or. 1994). “ORS 314.410(1). ORS 314.410(3) 1 provides for an exception, however: “If the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or other authorized officer of the Federal Government makes a correction resulting in a change in tax for state * * * income tax purposes, then notice of a deficiency…”
U.S. Bancorp & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 232 (Or. T.C. 2003). “410(3) expired before the State Extension became effective and the NODs for 1988 and 1989 are untimely under ORS 314.410 because no other limitations provision protected the department’s actions.”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 P.3d 85 (Or. 2004). “410(6) (providing that parties may enter extension agreement before expiration of any period of time prescribed for giving of notice of deficiency); see also generally ORS 314.410(1) (providing that department generally has three years after return is filed to issue notice of…”
Swarens v. Deparment of Revenue, 890 P.2d 1374 (Or. 1995).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3)(a) — 1 case
Curtis v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 414 (Or. T.C. 2004). “Taxpayer asserts this limitation is found in ORS 314.410(3). *422 However, taxpayer, who chose not to file Oregon returns, ignores the provision of ORS 314.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3)(a)(B) — 1 case
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3)(b) — 2 cases
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3)(b)(A) — 4 cases
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
Dept. of Rev. v. Washington Fed., Inc., 20 Or. Tax 507 (Or. T.C. 2012). “2 It is also important to note the effect of the time limit stated in ORS 314.410 remaining open. If that time for issuance of a notice of deficiency has not expired, the defi- ciency asserted in Oregon is not limited to the item changed or corrected by another state.”
Tomseth v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3)(b)(B) — 2 cases
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
Dept. of Rev. v. Washington Fed., Inc., 20 Or. Tax 507 (Or. T.C. 2012). “2 It is also important to note the effect of the time limit stated in ORS 314.410 remaining open. If that time for issuance of a notice of deficiency has not expired, the defi- ciency asserted in Oregon is not limited to the item changed or corrected by another state.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(3)(c) — 1 case
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(4) — 9 cases
Anaconda Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 565 P.2d 1084 (Or. 1977). “ORS 314.410. The taxpayer may then appeal to the department where he is entitled to a formal hearing.”
Brenner v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 299 (Or. T.C. 1983). “The plaintiff alleges that: (1) The defendant’s “Second Notice of Assessment,” dated December 31, 1980, for each tax year, was beyond the statutory three-year period of assessment, as described in ORS 314.410, for the tax year 1976 (PI Comp, ¶ XIII); (2) The Department of…”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
Olympia Brewing Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 7 Or. Tax 301 (Or. T.C. 1977). “The first issue presented is stated in the defendant’s opinion as "concerning the Department’s authority to issue a proposed assessment [of additional income taxes] after a prior proposed assessment had been issued and not assessed within one year, where the second proposed…”
Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 421 P.2d 379 (Or. 1966).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(4)(b)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(5) — 4 cases
Hallmark Mktg. Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 69 (Or. T.C. 2002).
Diaz v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012).
Enyart v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016).
Picker v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(6) — 4 cases
Anaconda Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 565 P.2d 1084 (Or. 1977). “ORS 314.410. The taxpayer may then appeal to the department where he is entitled to a formal hearing.”
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 P.3d 85 (Or. 2004). “410(6) (providing that parties may enter extension agreement before expiration of any period of time prescribed for giving of notice of deficiency); see also generally ORS 314.410(1) (providing that department generally has three years after return is filed to issue notice of…”
Olympia Brewing Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 7 Or. Tax 301 (Or. T.C. 1977). “The first issue presented is stated in the defendant’s opinion as "concerning the Department’s authority to issue a proposed assessment [of additional income taxes] after a prior proposed assessment had been issued and not assessed within one year, where the second proposed…”
Hallmark Mktg. Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 69 (Or. T.C. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(7) — 2 cases
Hallmark Mktg. Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 69 (Or. T.C. 2002).
Enyart v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(8) — 3 cases
Hallmark Mktg. Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 Or. Tax 69 (Or. T.C. 2002).
Dep't of Revenue v. IBM Corp., 15 Or. Tax 162 (Or. T.C. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(9) — 1 case
Simone v. Dep't of Revenue, 12 Or. Tax 5 (Or. T.C. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.410(b) — 1 case
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 Or. Tax 468 (Or. T.C. 2012). “380 and ORS 314.410 are important in the discussion of the statute of limitations issue.”
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.