Refund of excess tax paid
- claim procedure
Source:
Section 305.270 — Refund of excess tax paid; claim procedure, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors305.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Provision for notice of proposed adjustment and tendering taxpayer an opportunity to be heard prior to reducing taxpayer’s claim for refund is mandatory and Department of Revenue’s failure to provide notice and hearing prior to making adjustments in refund claim denied plaintiffs’ procedural due process in violation of Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution. Kent v. Dept. of Revenue, 9 OTR 356 (1983)
Refund provisions of this section are limited to taxes “shown on a report or return filed by the person with the department” and do not act to extend period of time in which taxpayer may contest assessment. Estate of Frances Tate v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 343 (1987)
Requirement that notices and determinations set forth rights of appeal does not apply to notices issued by county assessor. Ecumenical Ministries v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 302 (1992), aff’d 317 Or 576, 858 P2d 449 (1993)
Refund provisions do not apply to supplement special refund provisions applicable to invalidly assessed taxes under ORS 305.765. Atkins v. Dept. of Rev., 320 Or 713, 894 P2d 449 (1995)
Issuance of notice of deficiency pursuant to ORS 305.265 satisfies requirement to send claimant notice of proposed adjustment. Simson v. Dept. of Revenue, 15 OTR 89 (2000)
Date of successful garnishment by Department of Revenue is date of payment of tax for purposes of commencing period within which claim must be filed. Patton v. Dept. of Revenue, 18 OTR 111 (2004)
Except with regard to paid income taxes, appeal from Department of Revenue action and procedure for seeking refund are independent and mutually exclusive remedies. Patton v. Dept. of Revenue, 18 OTR 111 (2004)
No “examination or audit” of taxpayer’s refund claim occurred under subsection (8) of this section where Department of Revenue’s facial review of taxpayer’s claim for refund, when compared with department’s own payment records, was basis for department’s finding of taxpayer’s miscalculation, which resulted in department’s payment of refund to taxpayer in amount that was greater than amount requested in taxpayer’s claim for refund. Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 539, slip op. TC 5253 (2018)
Fact that Department of Revenue paid refund to taxpayer in amount greater than amount requested in taxpayer’s refund claim does not render subsection (8) of this section inapplicable, because variation in amount paid did not arise from examination or audit of refund claim. Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 539, slip op. TC 5253 (2018)
Notice of deficiency is subset of category of notices of proposed adjustment contemplated under subsection (3) of this section and thus may be used for purposes of determining whether extensions to time limitations provided by subsection (8) of this section are available. Vesta Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 22 OTR 539, slip op. TC 5253 (2018)