Case ID: or_335/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted May 5,
    judgment of Tax Court affirmed May 22,
    reconsideration denied July 29, 2003
    Gary Alan CLARK, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent.
    
    (OTC 4548; SC S49793)
    69 P3d 718
    Gary Alan Clark argued the cause and filed the briefs for himself.
    Wendy Sanderson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Hardy Myers, Attorney General.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Taxpayer appeals from a judgment of the Oregon Tax Court that dismissed taxpayer’s complaint, assessed damages against him for pursuing a frivolous appeal, and awarded attorney fees and costs to the Department of Revenue.

The Tax Court determined that the facts and legal principles on which taxpayer relied in this proceeding were not materially different from those that taxpayer asserted and that the Tax Court and this court decided were frivolous in Clark v. Dept. of Rev., 332 Or 236, 237, 26 P3d 821 (2001) (Clark I). Clark v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 51, 53 (2002). We agree. As this court stated in Clark I, the theories that taxpayer espouses as the basis for his arguments, “however honestly held, are so incorrect as to render legal arguments based on them frivolous.” 332 Or at 237.

We have considered each of taxpayer’s arguments in support of this appeal and conclude that none is well taken. The Tax Court’s rulings were correct, and the Tax Court’s awards of frivolous appeal damages and attorney fees and costs were appropriate. An explanation of our reasons for rejecting taxpayer’s theories and affirming the Tax Court’s decision would not benefit the bench, bar, or public.

The judgment of the Oregon Tax Court is affirmed.