Defendant's activities within Portland account for at least five percent of his income during those years. In 1997, plaintiff initiated this action to recover unpaid business license fees from 1992 through 1996, along with penalties and interest. Defendant filed an answer denying that he did business within Portland and a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment. The court also reasoned that defendant was not entitled to a declaration of the parties' respective rights and duties and, thus, denied his request for a declaratory judgment. The court entered judgment accordingly.
Defendant raises essentially four arguments on appeal.
First, he argues that, to the extent he was acting as an officer of the court within the city, he was either not engaging in business or was exempt from the business license fee. Second, he argues that a business license fee is a poll or head tax that violates Article IX, section 1a, of the Oregon Constitution. Third, he argues that the business license fee violates the Due Process Clause. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in not including a declaration resolving his counterclaim in the judgment. The first issue defendant raises is narrow.