Opinion ID: 1151195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the department's stipulation

Text: The taxpayer also asserts that she is entitled to a refund for the years 1970 through 1988 because of the stipulation made by the Department in the administrative proceedings. The tax court discussed this issue. We quote from its opinion: Plaintiff claims that defendant has stipulated that her pensions were `exempt.' Plaintiff relies on a stipulation of facts entered into at the administrative hearing. The stipulation is in defendant's Opinion and Order and as such adopted in defendant's answer by reference. That part of the stipulation in question reads: `6. Each Form 40X requests a refund due to the decrease in income which results from the exclusion of income from the two exempt federal pensions. Mrs. Ragsdale relies on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. [803], 109 S.Ct. [1500], 103 L.Ed.2d 891, 63 AFTR2d 1174 (1989), in support of her requests for refund.' (Opinion and Order No. 89-2517, at 2.) The court cannot accept plaintiff's view of this stipulation. As defendant points out, it is a stipulation of fact as to the reason for the claimed refunds. It is not a stipulation that the pensions were exempt. That would be a stipulation of law, not fact. Stipulations of law affecting the public are not binding on the court. It is the province of the court to determine the law. Macklin v. Kaiser Co., 69 F Supp 137 (1946). Also, plaintiff reads more into the stipulation than properly can be. Johnson v. Northwest Acceptance, 259 Or 1, 485 P2d 12, (1971). The court finds that defendant did not stipulate plaintiff's pensions were exempt. Ragsdale v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 440, 442, 1990 WL 174474 (1990). We agree with the tax court on this issue.