Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.600 (2026)

Tax as debt; collection; limitation

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      321.600 Tax as debt; collection; limitation. All taxes, interest and penalties due and unpaid under ORS 321.005 to 321.185, 321.560 to 321.600 or 321.700 to 321.754 constitute a debt due the State of Oregon and may be collected, together with interest, penalty and costs, by appropriate judicial proceeding, which remedy is in addition to all other existing remedies. However, no proceeding for the collection of taxes under ORS 321.005 to 321.185, 321.560 to 321.600 or 321.700 to 321.754 shall be instituted after the expiration of six years from the date the taxes were due. [Formerly 321.105; 2003 c.454 §58; 2003 c.621 §43a]

 

      321.605 [1961 c.659 §2; 1963 c.60 §2; 1967 c.543 §1; 1975 c.745 §1; repealed by 1977 c.892 §51]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2016–2018 · leading case: Perkins v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 370 (Or. T.C. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perkins v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 370 (Or. T.C. 2017). · cites it 15× “Taxpayer argued that ORS 321.600, being a statute of limitations on collection actions of timber taxes, was a tax law of this state and that the Tax Court had jurisdiction in the matter.”
Christensen v. Dept. of Rev., 22 Or. Tax 384 (Or. T.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “570 in violation of ORS 321.600, which provides for a six-year lim- itations period on collection proceedings for timber taxes.”
Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018). “ORS 321.600 (discussed in Perkins, 22 OTR at 376 ).”
Perkins v. Dept. of Rev., No. TC-MD 150331C (Or. T.C. Feb. 3, 2016). · cites it 12× “410(1) because of Defendant’s “violation of ORS 321.600, the statute of limitations for the institution of collection proceedings for timber taxes.”
Christensen v. Dept. of Rev., No. TC-MD 150447C (Or. T.C. Aug. 2, 2016). “Department of Revenue, TC-MD 150331C at 5 (Jan 15, 2016) (holding that the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s appeal alleging that defendant instituted collection proceedings against him in violation of ORS 321.600, because plaintiff…”
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.