Case Title: Esquiro v. Dept. of Rev.

Citation: 

Docket Number: S44128

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed: November 27, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

GEORGE C. ESQUIRO,

	Appellant,

	v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,

	Respondent.

(OTC 3954; SC S44128)

	Appeal from the Oregon Tax Court.*

	Carl N. Byers, Judge.

	Argued and submitted November 9, 1998.

	Howard G. Arnett, of Karnopp, Petersen, Noteboom, Hansen,
Arnett & Sayeg LLP, Bend, argued the cause for appellant.  With
him on the briefs was Tia M. Lewis.

	James C. Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause for respondent.  With him on the brief was Hardy Myers,
Attorney General.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
Durham, Leeson, and Riggs, Justices.**

	PER CURIAM

	The judgment of the Oregon Tax Court is affirmed.

	*14 OTR 130 (1997).

	**Kulongoski, J., did not participate in the consideration
or decision of this case.

		PER CURIAM

		This is an appeal from the Oregon Tax Court.  Plaintiff
(taxpayer) is a resident of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation
in Oregon, but not a member of the Warm Springs Indian tribe.  He
is an enrolled member of a federally recognized American Indian
tribe in Alaska.  The narrow question on appeal is whether
taxpayer may be subjected to Oregon income taxation on his income
earned in Alaska.  That income was not earned from activities
carried out within Indian Country in Alaska.  

		The parties stipulated to the material facts.  During
1990, taxpayer earned income from commercial fishing activities
in Alaska.  He fished as a private person with a commercial
fishing license issued by Alaska and not pursuant to any special
Indian or tribal fishing rights.  The Tax Court found that
taxpayer, as a nonmember of the Warm Springs Indian tribe, is not
exempt from state income taxes imposed on income earned outside
the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and outside Oregon.  Esquiro
v. Dept. of Rev., 14 OTR 130, 135 (1997).

		The facts of this case are such that publishing an
extended opinion unlikely would benefit the bench, bar, or
public.  We have considered each of taxpayer's arguments and have
determined, as did the Tax Court, that none is well taken.

		The judgment of the Oregon Tax Court is affirmed.