Oregon Worsted Co. v. State Tax Com

3 Citing cases

  1. Strawn v. Commission

    1 OTR 98 (Or. T.C. 1962)   Cited 10 times

    And the provision empowering the court to 'affirm * * * reverse, modify or remand' permits the court itself, in the event the presumption is overcome, to determine the correct assessment, if the record is sufficient, or to set aside the additional assessment altogether, or to remand it to the commission for correction in the light of such guiding principles as the court may lay down."Case v. Chambers was reasonably explicit, and for some time received nothing more than note and repetition in subsequent Oregon cases. For instance, in Oregon Worsted Co. v. State Tax Commission, 217 Or. 104, 117, 317 P.2d 924, 342 P.2d 108 (1959), the court noted that in an appeal the circuit court may affirm, modify or remand, and went on to discuss the problem of burden of proof upon the remand. In that case and in the consolidated cases of M M Woodworking Co. v. State Tax Commission and Crown Zellerbach Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 217 Or. 161, 314 P.2d 272, 275, 317 P.2d 920, 925, 339 P.2d 718 (1959), the court discussed whether or not equity or law procedures upon appeal to the Supreme Court would apply, and decided that an appeal in a tax case proceeds as a case in equity, with no requirement for bill of exceptions.

  2. Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Gordon)

    70 T.C. 404 (U.S.T.C. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    In other contexts, the word “presumed” is not used in its evidentiary sense but means “deemed” or “considered.” Oregon Worsted Co. v. Chambers, 217 Or. 104, 342 P.2d 108, 111 (1959); Rice v. McCarthy, 73 Cal. App. 655, 239 P. 56, 58 (2d Dist. Ct. App. 1925). Stated another way, upon the proof of required preliminary facts, the conclusion to be “presumed” is made mandatory.

  3. West House, Inc. v. State Tax Com

    228 Or. 167 (Or. 1961)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting Defendant's argument that its regulations adopted pursuant to 1953 version of ORS 308.205 "became a legislative rule which must be given judicial recognition unless it can be said that the regulation is unreasonable"

    We have held that the defendant has the burden of proving that the original assessment was not based upon the true cash value of the reported property. As taught in Oregon Worsted Co. v. State Tax Com., 217 Or. 104, 317 P.2d 924, 342 P.2d 108 (1959), the burden of proof does not shift to the taxpayer until the commission has established "that the total original assessment has been materially undervalued." In the case at bar the commission did not prove such material undervaluation.