Court Opinion

ID: 9562138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:22:16.542391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:13.459331
License: Public Domain

SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the following reasons:
The government’s prohibitions and limitations on plaintiff’s use of the property are so much more restrictive and the government’s interference, use, management and demands on plaintiff are so much more imposing than in Sproul et al v. Gilbert et al, 1961, 226 Or 392, 359 P2d 543, that plantiff’s use of the premises is not a possessory interest as defined in Sproul.
Defendant is estopped for all of the tax years in dispute by the unappealed decree of the tax court for the tax year 1962. See Tait v. Western Maryland R. Co., 1933, 289 US 620, 53 S Ct 706, 77 Led 1405; Commissioner v. Sunnen, 1948, 333 US 591, 68 S. Ct 715, 92 Led 898; State v. Baker, 1964, Alaska, 393 P2d 893; Dolven v. First National Bank, 1964, 238 Or 306, 309, 393 P2d 196; Restatement, Judgments, §70. The issue to be decided in each case, as stated by defendant’s brief, is ® whether the statutory requirement that a deduction be made for restricted use required defendant to consider the declining term of the special-use permit * * This was decided by the unappealed decision at 1 OTR 584.
On the merits, the tax court’s decision, 2 OTR 368, was right.