Court Opinion

ID: 9610983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:50:15.389977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:07.821077
License: Public Domain

TANZER, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The 1981 amendments to ORS 107.105(l)(e) appear to be a legislative attempt to secure the tax consequences of community property without enacting the substance of community property. All that is enacted are labels intended to sound as if they describe interests, e.g., “shall be considered a species of co-ownership.” As the majority recognizes, we are not an authoritative court on issues of federal tax laws. I predict that the United States Supreme Court, if presented with this issue, would look through the statutory labels to the actual ownership interests and conclude that a transfer of separately owned, appreciated property in Oregon is a taxable event despite the vague, indefinite substantive language of the 1981 amendments. In support of this conclusion, I rely upon the excellent opinion by Judge Young for the Court of Appeals.
Campbell, J., joins in this dissent.