Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev.

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 1 of 10
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Income Tax
MICKEY JIMENEZ, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffmickey jimenez, TC-MD 260540N
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT	Defendant.
This matter came before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal for
the 2018 through 2021 tax years and the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment for the
2022 through 2024 tax years. This matter is now ready for determination.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Background
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 19, 2026, appealing Defendant’s Notices of
Deficiency and Notices of Assessment (collectively, notices), distraint warrants, collection
actions, and frivolous appeal penalties for tax years 2018 through 2024. (Compl at 1, 4-6.) The
notices adjusted Plaintiff’s returns to include wages, resulting in increased federal adjusted gross
income and the amount of Oregon tax due. (Id. at 58-109.) Each Notice of Deficiency included
1) the reasons for the adjustments to income, 2) statutory and code citations pertaining to those
adjustments, 3) a statement that adjustments were made in good faith and not to extend the
period of assessment, and 4) a statement explaining Plaintiff’s right to make written objections or
request a conference. (Id.) Defendant also adjusted Plaintiff’s returns for interest and penalties
(id. at 75-97) and issued distraint warrants (id. at 110-126). For the 2022 through 2024 tax years,
Defendant assessed a $250 frivolous appeal penalty for each year. (Id. at 76-89.)

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 2 of 10
Plaintiff has previously litigated the 2018 tax year in both divisions of this court and in
the Oregon Supreme Court. See Jimenez v. Dept. of Rev., 24 OTR 618 (2021), aff’d 370 Or 543,
522 P3d 522 (2002) (describing prior proceedings, including a written objection rejected by
Defendant and an appeal to the Magistrate Division).1 Each of Plaintiff’s appeals was denied.
For tax years 2019, 2020, and 2022 through 2024, Plaintiff filed Written Objection
Appeals with Defendant, claiming his wages were not taxable.2 (Def’s Ans at 2.) Those appeals
were denied, and Plaintiff did not appeal to this court until this appeal. (Id.) For the 2021 tax
year, Plaintiff did not file an appeal with either Defendant or this court until this appeal. (Id.)
Defendant issued Notices of Assessment dated August 12, 2021, for tax year 2019; January 3,
2022, for tax year 2020; December 16, 2022, for tax year 2021; and February 23, 2026, for tax
years 2022, 2023, and 2024. (Compl at 92-109.)
B. Parties’ Arguments
Plaintiff claims the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made a final determination of zero
federal taxable income for the years at issue, and that Oregon taxable income must equal that
determination. (Compl at 3-4; Ptf’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 7.) Plaintiff submitted copies of
Records of Accounts prepared by the IRS, which he uses to support his claim that he had zero
federal adjusted gross income, zero taxable income, and zero total tax liability for the tax years at
issue. (Compl at 4, 8-52.)
Plaintiff also claims Defendant’s Notices of Deficiency were invalid, as they were
“unsigned, lack[ed] the certification required by ORS 305.265(2)(c), and were issued without
1 Plaintiff’s spouse, Theresa Jimenez, was also a plaintiff in that appeal. Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Oregon
Supreme Court was only of the Regular Division’s award of a $4,000 sanction.
2 Plaintiff disputes Defendant’s characterization of his argument, instead describing it as a claim that the
IRS has determined he had zero federal taxable income for the years at issue. (Ptf’s Resp at 2.)

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 3 of 10
written delegation from [Defendant’s] Director filed with the Secretary of State as required by
ORS 305.057.” (Compl at 4; see also Ptf’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 4.) Plaintiff claims Defendant
improperly imposed frivolous return penalties. (Comp at 4.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s 2018 tax year appeal has been previously litigated and
2019 through 2021 are untimely. (Ans at 1-2.) For tax years 2022 through 2024, Defendant
claims it is not bound by IRS determinations of federal tax liability. (Def’s Mot Summ J at 2.)
Defendant asks the court to apply a frivolous appeal penalty under ORS 305.437. (Id.)
II. ANALYSIS
There are several issues in this case. The first is whether Plaintiff’s appeals of tax years
2018 through 2021 must be dismissed either due to claim preclusion (2018) or timeliness (2019
through 2021). The court will next consider the issues raised by Plaintiff for tax years properly
before the court: 1) whether Defendant’s Notices of Deficiency were valid, and 2) whether
Oregon taxable income must equal federal taxable income as shown on IRS account records.
Finally, the court will decide whether Defendant’s imposition of a frivolous penalty was justified
and will also consider whether the court should impose a sanction for a frivolous claim.
The court grants motions for summary judgment where the documents on file show
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail
as a matter of law.”3 Tax Court Rule 47 C; Tax Court Rule—Magistrate Division 13 B. Plaintiff
ultimately bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.4
3 Plaintiff claims that there are issues of material fact yet to be resolved and that he is entitled to discovery.
(See Ptf’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to determine if written
authorizations have been filed with the Secretary of State for individual employees of Defendant. (See id.) To the
extent Plaintiff seeks records in possession of the Secretary of State, he may separately pursue that request without a
discovery order from this court. As explained below, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s Notices of Deficiency
were issued without proper delegation is not well-taken. Any unresolved facts are not material to the outcome of
this case.
4 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2023. The relevant statutes did not

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 4 of 10
A. Motion to Dismiss 2018 through 2021 Tax Years
Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s appeal of tax years 2018 through 2021 is not properly
before this court. (Ans at 1-2.) Defendant argues Plaintiff previously litigated his 2018 appeal
and that his attempt to relitigate it is a frivolous claim under ORS 305.437. (Id. at 1-2.) Tax year
2018 has been previously litigated in this division of the court and beyond. Jimenez v. Dept. of
Rev., TC-MD 200039G, 2021 WL 37636 (Or Tax M Div, Jan 5, 2021) (denying Plaintiff’s
appeal); Jimenez, 24 OTR 618 (dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice); Jimenez v. Dept. of
Rev., 370 Or 543, 522 P3d 522 (2022) (affirming tax court judgment). Once a tax year has been
placed before the court, the parties must “raise all issues and defenses in connection with that
claim so that the claim may be finally resolved.” U.S. Bancorp v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 13, 17
(1999). After a tax year has been appealed and litigated before the court, “the judicial doctrine
of claim preclusion applies.”5 Id. at 16. Plaintiff provides no reasoning or authority to explain
why this tax year should be relitigated in this court, and the court it not aware of any. Plaintiff’s
appeal for tax year 2018 is dismissed.
For tax years 2019 through 2021, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to appeal
Defendant’s Notices of Assessment within the 90-day deadline imposed by ORS 305.280. (Ans
at 2.) ORS 305.280(2) provides in relevant part:
“An appeal * * * from any notice of assessment * * * issued by the Department of
Revenue with respect to a tax imposed under ORS chapter 118, 308, 308A, 310,
314, 316, 317, 318, 321 or this chapter * * * shall be filed within 90 days after the
date of the notice.” 6
change substantively between 2017 and 2023.
5 Claim preclusion is part of “a doctrine of rules and principles governing the binding effect on a
subsequent proceeding of a final judgment previously entered in a claim.” U.S. Bancorp, 15 OTR at 14 (internal
citation omitted).
6 ORS 305.280(3) states a notice of assessment may be filed within two years after the date the tax
is paid. That provision is not relevant here, as Plaintiff has not provided evidence that the taxes were paid.

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 5 of 10
For tax years 2019 through 2021, Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on May 19, 2026, well beyond
the 90 days allowed by ORS 305.280(2).7 Plaintiff does not dispute that his appeals for tax years
2019 through 2021 were untimely, nor does he provide any evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff
has not presented any authority that extends the 90-day deadline to appeal, and the court is not
aware of any such authority. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s appeals of tax years 2019 through 2021 are
dismissed. Plaintiff’s appeal for the 2022 through 2024 tax years were timely filed, so the court
proceeds to consider Plaintiff’s claims for those years.
B. Plaintiff’s Claims for 2022 through 2024 Tax Years
1. Invalid notices
Plaintiff claims Defendant’s Notices of Deficiency are “facially invalid” because they
were “unsigned, lack[ed] the certification required by ORS 305.265(2)(c), and were issued
without proper written delegation from the Director filed with the Secretary of State as required
by ORS 305.057.” (Compl at 5.)
Notice requirements are found in ORS 305.265. If Defendant determines that a
deficiency exists after examining or auditing a tax return, “it shall compute the tax and give
notice to the person filing the return of the deficiency and of [Defendant’s] intention to assess the
deficiency, plus interest and any appropriate penalty.” ORS 305.265(2). This authorizing statute
then prescribes that the notice shall:
“(a) State the reason for each adjustment;
“(b) Give a reference to the statute, regulation or department ruling upon which
the adjustment is based; and
“(c) Be certified by [Defendant] that the adjustments are made in good faith and
7 Notices of Assessment were issued on August 12, 2021, for tax year 2019; January 3, 2022, for tax year
2020; and December 16, 2022, for tax year 2021.

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 6 of 10
not for the purpose of extending the period of assessment.”
Id. The notice shall also include a statement explaining the person’s right to make written
objections, right to request a conference, and the procedure for requesting a conference.
ORS 305.265(5)(a).
Plaintiff’s argument that the notices are unsigned is similar to one made by the taxpayer
in Department of Revenue v. Faris, 345 Or 97, 190 P3d 364 (2008). There, the taxpayer claimed
that Defendant’s Notice of Deficiency was not “certified” under ORS 305.265(2)(c) because “it
did not include a hand signature attesting that it was issued in good faith.” Id. at 99. The Oregon
Supreme Court disagreed, holding that no signature was required and that certification required
only that Defendant “assure taxpayers in writing, and with a degree of formality, that the
adjustments to their taxes were made in good faith.” Id. at 105. Plaintiff’s argument that a
signature was required was also rejected by this court in his 2018 appeal. See Jimenez, TC-MD
200039G at * 2 (“Oregon law authorizes Defendant to adjust returns when it determines in good
faith there is a deficiency. ORS 305.265(2). Defendant must give notice when it adjusts a
return, but there is no requirement that its notice be signed. See id.”).
Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant issued the notices without filing the proper written
delegation with the Secretary of State under ORS 305.057 is not well-taken. That statute deals
with powers granted to the director, not to Defendant itself, and the legislature has not required
Defendant to make written delegation to its officers and employees. See Okorn v. Dept. of Rev.,
11 OTR 385, 387 (1990), aff’d, 312 Or 152, 818 P2d 928 (1991) (concluding no delegation was
required for the department’s officers and agents to assess the taxes at issue).
Here, the Notices of Deficiency included 1) the reasons for the adjustments to income, 2)
statutory citations pertaining to those adjustments, 3) a statement that adjustments were made in

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 7 of 10
good faith and not to extend the period of assessment, and 4) a statement explaining Plaintiff’s
right to make written objections or request a conference. The court finds the Notices of
Deficiency were valid under ORS 305.265.
2. Federal vs. Oregon tax liability
Plaintiff argues his Oregon taxable income must match what he claims was an IRS
determination that he had zero taxable income for the tax years at issue. (Ptf’s Resp at 2.) He is
not arguing that “wages are categorically nontaxable.”8 (Id.) Plaintiff claims the binding effect
of the alleged IRS determination of zero federal taxable income under ORS 316.048 and ORS
316.012(2) is a new legal argument not previously adjudicated. (Id. at 1.)
The Oregon Supreme Court has stated that the IRS’s determination of federal tax liability
does not bind Oregon’s tax authorities. Okorn v. Dept. of Rev., 312 Or 152, 155, 818 P2d 928
(1991); Detrick v. Dept. of Rev., 311 Or 152, 156, 806 P2d 682 (1991). While Oregon
incorporates certain provisions of federal tax law, “[t]he legislature’s incorporation by reference
is equivalent to its having republished the specified federal provisions in the state statutes”
making federal tax provisions state law and making Defendant’s determinations under state
rather than federal law. Okorn, 312 Or at 155. Relatedly, Defendant may issue income tax
assessments independent of whether the IRS has done so. Detrick, 311 Or at 155-56; see also
Dept. of Rev. v. U-Haul Co. of Oregon, 20 OTR 195, 208-11 (2010) (IRS determinations not
binding on the court).
/ / /
8 Such an argument would be frivolous, as held by the court in Combs v. Department of Revenue, 331 Or
245, 248, 14 P3d 584 (2000) (holding that an argument that wages are not taxable income “has no objective
reasonable basis in federal or state law”). See also Jimenez, 24 OTR 618 (holding Plaintiff’s argument that money
earned from employers was not income under federal law was “groundless and devoid of legal merit”).

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 8 of 10
The Oregon Supreme Court and both divisions of this court have already rejected
Plaintiff’s argument in his 2018 tax year appeal. Jimenez, 370 Or at 550 (“the fact that the IRS
had issued [Plaintiffs] a refund was not an objectively reasonable basis to argue against [their]
tax liability”); Jimenez, 24 OTR 618 (“Even if the IRS had made a determination as to Plaintiffs’
taxable income, it would not bind the court”); Jimenez, TC-MD 200039G at *2 (“Defendant is
not the IRS, and Oregon law authorizes Defendant to adjust returns when it determines in good
faith there is a deficiency”).
In his previous appeal to the Regular Division, Plaintiff cited a copy of an account
transcript prepared by the IRS for tax year 2018. Jimenez, 24 OTR 618. That transcript
“appear[ed] to show that the IRS issued Plaintiff[] a refund of all tax withheld, plus interest, for
that year.” Id. The Regular Division quoted Routledge v. Department of Revenue, 24 OTR 103
(2020) to explain why reliance on such a transcript is unfounded:
“When the IRS pays out a refund shortly after a taxpayer files a return, the IRS
has the benefit of periods of multiple years to recover the refund, including an
unlimited period if the taxpayer has filed a false or fraudulent return with the
intent to evade tax. IRC § 6501(a) (general three-year period of assessment,
starting with filing of return); (c) (no limitations period if intent to evade tax).
The IRS also has significant collection tools, including certain rights to claim
priority as against other creditors. See generally Boris I. Bittker & Lawrence
Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 113 (3rd ed. 2019). The
fact that the IRS chose to accept Plaintiff’s claim at face value * * * tells the court
nothing about the IRS’s view of the claim’s validity.”
Id. (internal citation omitted). Defendant is neither bound by the IRS records submitted by
Plaintiff nor must it otherwise follow IRS determinations. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.
C. Frivolous Return and Appeal Penalties
Plaintiff argues the frivolous return penalties were improperly imposed by Defendant.
(Compl at 5.) Defendant claims the penalties were properly imposed and asks the court to award
an additional penalty for a frivolous appeal. (Def’s Mot Summ J at 2.)

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 9 of 10
Defendant shall assess a penalty of $250 against a taxpayer under certain circumstances,
including when the taxpayer’s return is based on a frivolous position. See ORS 316.992(1),
(2)(a). A frivolous position includes “[a]n argument that wages or salary are not includable in
taxable income[.]” ORS 316.992(5)(c).
Similarly, this court has a statutory obligation to award a penalty for a frivolous appeal
found in ORS 305.437. That statute provides, in part:
“(1) * * * [W]henever it appears to the Oregon Tax Court that proceedings before
it have been instituted or maintained by a taxpayer primarily for delay or that the
taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, a penalty in an
amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be awarded to the Department of Revenue by
the Oregon Tax Court in its judgment. * * *
“(2) As used in this section:
“(a) A taxpayer’s position is ‘frivolous’ if there was no objectively reasonable
basis for asserting the position.
“(b) ‘Position’ means any claim, defense or argument asserted by a taxpayer
without regard to any other claim, defense or argument asserted by the taxpayer.”
“If the statutory conditions have been met, the Tax Court’s duty to award the penalty is
mandatory.” Jimenez, 370 Or at 549 (quoting statutory language that “a penalty * * * shall be
awarded to the Department of Revenue by the Oregon Tax Court” (emphasis added)).
The court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments are not objectively reasonable. Plaintiff did not
show that Defendant’s notices were invalid or provide any reasonable basis for asserting that his
Oregon taxable income must equal federal taxable income as shown on IRS account records.
Plaintiff’s arguments have been rejected by the Regular Division and the Oregon Supreme Court
as frivolous. Because Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous, the court must impose a penalty
under ORS 305.437(1). The court upholds the penalties imposed by Defendant under
ORS 316.992 and imposes an additional penalty of $3,000 under ORS 305.437.

DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TC-MD 260540N 10 of 10
III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration, the court dismisses Plaintiff’s appeal for the 2018 through
2021 tax years. The court further concludes that no relief may be granted for Plaintiff’s frivolous
claims for the 2022 through 2024 tax years. Now, therefore,
IT IS DECIDED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal of the 2018
through 2021 tax years is granted.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is
denied, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted for the 2022 through 2024
tax years.
IT IS FURTHER DECIDED that the frivolous appeal penalties imposed by Defendant
under ORS 316.992 for the 2022 through 2024 tax years are upheld. In addition, Plaintiff shall
pay a frivolous appeal penalty of $3,000 to Defendant under ORS 305.437.
ALLISON R. BOOMER
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
To appeal this Decision, file a complaint in the Regular Division of the Oregon
Tax Court. Appeals are accepted by electronic filing; by mail at 1163 State
Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; and by hand delivery to 1241 State Street, Salem,
OR, Floor 4R.
Your complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of this Decision
or this Decision cannot be changed. TCR-MD 19 B.
This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Allison R. Boomer and
entered on September 30, 2026.