Title: Dept. of Rev. v. Glass
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S47572
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: November 16, 2001

Filed: November 16, 2001    
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
	Respondent,
	v.
WHELDON E. GLASS,
	Appellant.
(OTC 4385; SC S47572)

	En Banc
	On appeal from the Oregon Tax Court.*
	Carl N. Byers, Judge.
	Argued and submitted September 11, 2001.
	Wheldon E. Glass, appellant pro se, argued the cause and
filed the briefs and additional authorities.
	Jerry Bronner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause for respondent.  With him on the brief and additional
authorities was Hardy Myers, Attorney General.
	CARSON, C.J.
	The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.
	*15 OTR 117 (2000).
		CARSON, C.J.
		Taxpayer appeals a decision of the Tax Court, which
denied his claim for a refund of taxes paid for tax years 1992,
1993, and 1994.  Dept. of Rev. v. Glass, 15 OTR 117 (2000).  At
issue is whether taxpayer was a resident, under ORS 316.027
(1991), for the tax years in question.  We review for errors of
law and substantial evidence in the record to support the Tax
Court's decision.  ORS 305.445. 
		The Tax Court found the following facts:
	  	"Taxpayer lived in Oregon from 1963 until 1975
when he graduated from high school and joined the
United States Marine Corps.  Taxpayer left the military
in 1989 and returned to Oregon.  After working at two
different jobs, he enrolled in truck-driving school in
Eugene.  Upon graduation from truck-driving school in
1991, he became employed by KLLM Trucking, a company
headquartered in Mississippi.  In 1992, he became a
driver trainer for KLLM Trucking, and in late 1993
obtained a dedicated run between Salinas, California,
and one-of-five other cities, none of which were in
Oregon.
		"During the tax years in question, taxpayer lived
in his truck: a four-foot-wide, eight-foot-long, and
nine-foot-high unit attached to the cab of the tractor. 
It contained two bunks, a refrigerator, and a small
closet.  Taxpayer testified that he used shower and
bathroom facilities of truck stops and ate his meals in
restaurants.  He stayed in motels only about 12 to 13
times per year for which his employer reimbursed him. 
Taxpayer visited his parents about two weeks every year
in Glide, Oregon.  Although taxpayer has two siblings
who also live in Oregon, there was no evidence that he
ever visited them.  Taxpayer testified that his life
consisted mainly of driving a truck.
		"The department's evidence established that
taxpayer's driver license was issued by Oregon and that
taxpayer registered two personal automobiles in Oregon
during the years in question.  Taxpayer used his
parents' mailing address as a permanent mailing address
for important papers.  Taxpayer was not registered to
vote anywhere and had no banking or checking account in
Oregon.  Taxpayer used a truckers' banking service in
Tennessee that enabled his parents to pay his car
payments and insurance on his behalf."
Glass, 15 OTR at 118-19.
		Taxpayer asserts that he was not subject to state
personal income tax during 1992-94 because his source of income
was outside Oregon.  Under ORS 316.037(1)(a) (1991), the state
may tax an individual for income earned outside Oregon, if that
individual was a "resident of this state" at the time that the
individual earned the income.  ORS 316.027 (1991) provided, in
part:
		"(1)'Resident' or 'resident of this state' means:
		"(a) An individual who is domiciled in this state
unless the individual:
		"(A) Maintains no permanent place of abode in this
state;
		"(B) Does maintain a permanent place of abode
elsewhere; and
		"(C) Spends in the aggregate not more than 30 days
in the taxable year in this state; * * *."
This court has interpreted that statute to mean that, if an
individual is "domiciled" in Oregon, then he or she is a
"resident" unless he or she can satisfy all three conditions
under subsection (a).  dela Rosa v. Dept. of Rev., 313 Or 284,
288-89, 832 P2d 1228 (1992). (1)
		The Tax Court concluded that taxpayer was a "resident"
because he was "domiciled" in Oregon from 1992-94 and did not
"maintain a permanent place of abode elsewhere."  Taxpayer
challenges both those determinations.  We have considered
taxpayer's arguments and, for the reasons explained below, affirm
the Tax Court's decision.
		Taxpayer was domiciled in Oregon before 1992.  There is
substantial evidence in the record to show that taxpayer did not
intend to change domiciles after 1992.  See Elwert v. Elwert, 196
Or 256, 265, 248 P2d 847 (1952) ("To constitute a change three
things are essential: (1) residence in another place, (2) an
intention to abandon the old domicil, and (3) an intention to
acquire a new domicil.").  Consequently, taxpayer was domiciled
in Oregon during the relevant tax years.  Therefore, under ORS
316.027 (1991), taxpayer was a "resident" during the tax years in
question and was subject to Oregon income tax, unless he meets an
exception.  
		Taxpayer does not meet an exception.  Although taxpayer
did not maintain an abode in Oregon, and spent no more than 30
days in Oregon during each taxable year in question, taxpayer's
truck does not constitute "a permanent place of abode elsewhere." 
ORS 316.027(1)(a) (1991) (emphasis added).  Therefore, we
conclude that the Tax Court did not err in entering judgment
against taxpayer.
		The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.
1.      	We note that dela Rosa interpreted the 1981 version of
ORS 316.027.  However, the 1991 version is not substantially
different from the 1981 version.