Title: Gurs v. Dept. of Rev.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S44105
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: January 29, 1998

FILED: January 29, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

GEORGE R. GURS,

		Appellant,

	v.  

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon

	Respondent.

(OTC 4073; SC 44105)

	On appeal from the Oregon Tax Court.

	Carl N. Byers, Judge.

	Submitted on the record and briefs September 9, 1997.

	George R. Gurs, appellant, filed the briefs pro se.

	Joseph P. Dunne, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed
the brief for respondent.  With him on the brief was Hardy Myers,
Attorney General.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
Fadeley, Graber, and Durham, Justices.*

	FADELEY, J.

	The order of the Tax Court is affirmed.

	*Kulongoski, J., did not participate in this decision.

		FADELEY, J.

		Taxpayer appeals from the Tax Court's dismissal of his
complaint in that court.  The Tax Court reasoned that taxpayer
had not filed his complaint within 60 days after an adverse
decision of the Department of Revenue (department) as required by
ORS 305.560(1) (1995).(1)  The issue is whether the Tax Court erred
when it dismissed the complaint filed November 12, 1996,
challenging a department opinion and order dated May 13, 1996.  

		Taxpayer seeks to be excused on various grounds from
the statutory requirement of filing a complaint in the Tax Court
within the statutory time limit.  First, taxpayer points out
that, acting pro se, he did file his "objection" with the
director of the department.  He asserts that his "objection" was
made within 60 days and that it satisfied the requirements of ORS
305.560(1) (1995).  Second, taxpayer asserts that the 60-day
period should not have commenced running, because the department
should have construed his "objection" as a motion to reconsider
and made a ruling on that motion, thereby starting a new 60-day
period.  Third, taxpayer further asserts that the department
misled him to "appeal" by way of his objections to the Department
of Revenue, not the Tax Court, citing New Testament Baptist
Church v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 286 (1986).

		We are not persuaded by taxpayer's arguments.  The Tax
Court properly dismissed taxpayer's complaint, because it was
filed more than 60 days after service of the department's opinion
and order.  See Mongeon v. Dept. of Rev., 319 Or 303, 876 P2d 752
(1994) (so holding).  Taxpayer's arguments are unavailing against
the mandatory statute.  Those arguments also fail on the factual
record.  We conclude that there is no basis in the record
supporting taxpayer's claim that the matter was still before the
department on a request for reconsideration of the opinion and
order.  Indeed, the record demonstrates that a May 1996 letter
informed taxpayer of the rejection of his objections.  Likewise,
the record does not disclose any reasonable basis to believe that
taxpayer was misled concerning the applicability or effect of ORS
305.560(1) (1995).

		The order of the Tax Court is affirmed.

1. 	ORS 305.560(1) (1995) provides in part:

	"[A]n appeal from an order of the department on an
appeal taken pursuant to this chapter may be taken by
filing an original and one certified copy of a
complaint with the clerk of the Oregon Tax Court at its
principal office at Salem, Oregon, within 60 days after
a copy of the order or notice of the order has been
served upon the appealing party by mail as provided in
ORS 306.805 * * *."