Wendt v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 080911d (or.tax 3-31-2009)
Opinion of the Court
On audit, Defendant limited Plaintiffs' "credit for taxes paid to another state pursuant to ORS
"[t]he current formula calculation for allowances of income taxes paid by pass-through entities from non-resident states in the current case is inconsistent with legislative intent in that:
"1) It was clearly the conclusion of the Senate Finance Committee that the adoption of rules consistent with certain model multi-state income tax issues should result in no more of a tax burden to individual taxpayers than that which would result had the inclusionary income from non-resident sources been sitused solely in the state of Oregon.
"2) Disallowance of the credit to the taxpayers results in an inequitable tax burden through double taxation of that inclusionary income.
3) The resultant calculation creates an inequity by and between similarly situated taxpayers, but for the non-resident sitused income, equal treatment under the law appears to be violated."
(Ptfs' Mot for Summ J (Motion) at 4-5.)
*Page 3"(1) A resident individual shall be allowed a credit against the tax otherwise due under this chapter for the amount of any income tax imposed on the individual, or on an Oregon S corporation or Oregon partnership of which the individual is a member (to the extent of the individual's pro rata share of the S corporation or or distributive share of the partnership), for the tax year by another state on income derived from sources therein and that is also subject to tax under this chapter.
"(2) The credit provided under this section shall not exceed the proportion of the tax otherwise due under this chapter that the amount of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer derived from sources in the other state bears to the entire modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer.
* * * * *
"(6) The Department of Revenue may adopt rules under this section that provide a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter when the department considers the credit necessary to avoid taxation of the same income by this state and another state."
The parties stipulate that the "modified adjusted gross income derived from sources in the other state[s]" that was mutually taxed was $20,455 in Wisconsin and $167,657 in Iowa. ORS
State Mutually Taxed Income Tax Paid/Withheld Computed Tax Rate3 Iowa $167,657 $8,536 5.1 percent Wisconsin $20,455 $1,381 6.8 percentORS
Mutually taxed income X Oregon net income tax = Oregon tax credit on mutually Modified adjusted gross income taxed incomeThe Oregon Supreme Court interpreted ORS
If the court allowed Plaintiffs an Oregon tax credit in the full amount of the Iowa Franchise Tax withheld ($8,536), the amount of the credit would be five percent on the mutually taxed income ($167,657). The result would be similar for the Wisconsin income tax; the amount of the credit would be 6.8 percent on the mutually taxed income ($20,455). However, the actual Oregon tax rate on the mutually taxed income was approximately .3 percent.4
Plaintiffs rely on an Oregon Department of Revenue employee's testimony in support of Senate Bill 257 for their assertion that they are entitled to the full amount of Iowa Franchise Tax withheld and Wisconsin income tax. The Oregon Department of Revenue employee appeared before the Senate Revenue Committee to testify in support of a measure to "[a]llow credit for taxes paid to another state to be claimed when another state imposes tax on an entity that in Oregon is treated as a partnership." (Ptfs' Ex 1999 Senate Committee Revenue, Public Hearing on SB 257 at 2.)5 In response to a hypothetical situation posed by Vice Chair Wilde, the Oregon Department of Revenue employee stated as follows:
"If you are an Oregon resident you pay on a 100% of your income. You also would pay to Idaho, however Oregon would grant a tax credit for the share you paid to Idaho. You do not pay more than 100% of the tax between the states."
(Id. at 3,4.) Plaintiffs interpret that response to mean that whatever amount of tax was paid on mutually taxed income in another state should, in most cases, be credited against Oregon income *Page 5 tax. Plaintiffs suggest that the court follow its own holding inAvni v. Dept. of Rev., stating that "[w]hen interpreting a statute, the objective of the court is to determine the intent of the legislature."Avni, TC-MD No 990929E (July 6, 2000) at 4.
In this case, the court cannot undertake its own independent review of "the intent of the legislature" because the Oregon Supreme Court inSchuette interpreted the statute and there have been no substantive changes to the statutory provisions interpreted by the court. The court must follow the Schuette holding: Subsection (2) "limits the credit to the amount of tax that the taxpayer would have paid on the same income in Oregon. If another jurisdiction taxes income at a rate higher than Oregon, subsection (2) disallows the credit for taxes paid to the other state in excess of the amount of tax that Oregon would impose on the same income." Schuette
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; and
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is granted.
Dated this day of March 2009.
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the RegularDivision of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street,Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 StateStreet, Salem, OR. Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of theDecision or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed. This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner onMarch 31, 2009. The Court filed and entered this document on March 31,2009.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.