Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Department of Revenue

10 Citing cases

  1. PacifiCorp. v. Dep't of Revenue

    TC 5411 (Or. T.C. Jul. 17, 2023)

    " PP&L v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or. 49, 54-55, 775 P.2d 303 (1989). (See Def's Opening Post-Trial Br at 1-2.)

  2. PacifiCorp. v. Dep't of Revenue

    TC 5411 (Or. T.C. May. 24, 2023)

    " PP&L v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or. 49, 54-55, 775 P.2d 303 (1989).

  3. Union Pacific Railroad v. Department of Revenue

    315 Or. 11 (Or. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    Ruling that each party had the burden of proof with respect to the relief it sought

    It is a good practice for the Tax Court (or any trial court) to explain itself as fully as circumstances will permit. See PPL v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or. 49, 59-60, 775 P.2d 303 (1989) (both reviewing court and the parties would be assisted in certain circumstances if the Tax Court would more fully explain its conclusions); United Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 307 Or. 428, 441-42, 770 P.2d 43 (1989) (reviewing court left to speculate as to precise analysis used by Tax Court). But the fact that the Tax Court could have provided many more pages of explanation of its view does not establish that the Tax Court committed legal error.

  4. Level 3 Commc'ns v. Dep't of Revenue

    TC 5236 (Control) (Or. T.C. Oct. 25, 2019)

    The 'I' in the formula is an estimated future income figure for the company. The 'R' is a capitalization rate that is divided into the income figure to obtain the value, 'V.'" PP&L v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or 49, 58, 775 P2d 303 (1989). Taxpayer relies on its income approach exclusively, except that Taxpayer presented a cost approach to determine a "high benchmark" against which to check its income approach.

  5. PacifiCorp v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n

    153 Idaho 759 (Idaho 2012)   Cited 13 times
    In PacifiCorp, even at the appellate level, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the plaintiffs met their burden by a preponderance of the evidence, without citation to the "manifestly excessive" or "clear and convincing evidence" language found in the Court's prior Kimbrough opinion.

    The decisions of those courts are not in any way binding on this Court but it certainly seems appropriate to consider how our sister states have ruled on similar claims made by this multi-state corporation. The Commission cites Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, State of Oregon, 308 Or. 49, 775 P.2d 303 (1989). Pacific Power & Light Co. (Pacific) is a predecessor of PacifiCorp.

  6. Level 3 Commc'ns v. Dep't of Revenue

    368 Or. 303 (Or. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    As this court stated in Delta , the stock and debt valuation method is "based upon the premise that the value of assets is equal to total liabilities plus equity * * * [and] assumes that the market value of a company's assets can be imputed from the market value of its equity and debt." 328 Or. at 606, 984 P.2d 836 ; see also PP&L v. Dept. of Rev. , 308 Or. 49, 55-56, 775 P.2d 303 (1989) (approving use of stock and debt valuation method as substitute valuation technique when no comparable sales available). As we have stated, Level 3 performed no analysis using the market approach.

  7. Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue

    No. 1 CA-TX 19-0006 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2020)

    The deferred taxes are not income for FERC purposes and Transwestern does not earn a rate of return on investments made with this money. See FERC, Cost-of-Service Rates Manual 12 (June 1999); see also Pac. Power & Light Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 775 P.2d 303, 305 (Or. 1989) (explaining that "property purchased in this way actually costs the utility nothing, so no return needs to be earned on that property."). The deferred income taxes are effectively an interest free loan.

  8. City of Bend, v. Juniper Utility Company

    242 Or. App. 9 (Or. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing trial court's discretion to choose between competing valuation methods in a condemnation proceeding

    Moreover, we note that the cost approach has long served as an accepted method for determining fair market value in tax cases, including the fair market value of public utilities. See, e.g., Shields v. Dept. of Rev., 266 Or 461, 464-66, 513 P2d 784 (1973) (where no comparable sales for regional shopping center were available, and income and expenses of shopping center had not stabilized, cost approach was the proper method of determining property's fair market value); PP L v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or 49, 775 P2d 303 (1989) (deriving fair market value of utility from cost approach and income approach). We see no reason why a different rule would apply in this context, given the unique nature of the Juniper system.

  9. Citizens' Utility Board v. Public Utility Commission

    154 Or. App. 702 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    Explaining that PUC orders allowed PGE to “include a ‘rate of return’ (i.e., profit) component” in rates

    Pacific Tel. Tel. Co. v. Hill, 229 Or. 437, 444, 365 P.2d 1021, 367 P.2d 790 (1961). More recently, in PPL v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or. 49, 775 P.2d 303 (1989), the Supreme Court restated those two concepts in conjunction, and cited ORS 757.355 as the sole authority for either or both of them. The court said:

  10. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Department of Revenue

    12 OTR 521 (Or. T.C. 1993)

    Id. at 264. In PPL v. Dept. of Rev., 308 Or. 49, 775 P.2d 303 (1989), the Department of Revenue sought to have a property assessed at a value significantly greater than that established at an earlier administrative hearing. Plaintiff claimed the department bore the burden of proof.