Gua v. Dept. of Rev.

Page 1 of 3
ORDER TC 5453
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Personal Income Tax
CINDY GUA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5453
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Initial Set of Responsive Documents and
Plaintiff's Request to Place Case on Hold Until September 18, 2023,” filed August 17, 2023 and
Defendant’s response filed August 21, 2023.
Plaintiff’s August 17 filing comes as the court seeks to adjudicate her initial claim that
paying the income tax, interest, and penalties assessed to her for tax years 2016 through 2019
would be an undue hardship under ORS 305.419. 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Stay of Payment
of Income Tax, and accompanying affidavit, on or about April 19, 2023; Defendant objected on
or about May 22, 2023. On May 25, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit additional
documents, on or before June 30, 2023, to substantiate her claim of financial hardship during the
approximately five years preceding the filing of her complaint. 	On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff
sought an extension, until July 30, 2023, to submit the substantiating documents, which the court
granted. On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff requested a second extension, until August 30, 2023,
representing that she had requested, but not yet received, copies of documents from banks, credit
card companies, and other accounts. On August 9, 2023, the court granted that second extension
request, ordering Plaintiff to file an initial set of documents on or before August 17, 2023, and
1 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2021 edition.

Page 2 of 3
ORDER TC 5453
ordering her to otherwise fully comply with the August 30, 2023, deadline.
Plaintiff’s August 17 filing includes some 200 pages of credit card statements, for periods
in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, responsive to the court’s order to furnish documents
substantiating her claim of undue hardship. Despite that length, the documents respond to only
one of the six types of substantiating documents that the court ordered. Documents remaining to
be filed by the August 30, 2023, deadline include federal income tax returns and tax forms, a
declaration of gifts, bank statements, and property tax statements. Plaintiff’s August 17 filing
mentions nothing about the documents remaining to be filed.
The remainder of Plaintiff’s August 17 filing asks the court to “place this case on hold
until September 18, 2023.” To that extent, the court treats the August 17 filing as a motion to
place the case in abeyance.2 Plaintiff represents that lack of information has prevented her from
filing returns for the tax years at issue in this case, but that, over the last several months, she has
been able to obtain the needed information and has engaged an accountant to prepare the
returns. The filing states that the returns “are now complete and ready to be submitted to the
Oregon Department of Revenue,” and that they “are being mailed” to Defendant’s
auditor. Plaintiff states that her intent in filing the returns is to cause the case to be placed on
hold to allow Defendant to process the returns, making the “case a moot issue.”
Defendant’s August 21 response objects to any abeyance of the case on the grounds that
Defendant has not actually received any returns from Plaintiff. Defendant also refers to the
availability of proceedings under ORS 305.265(10), in the event Defendant receives returns.
Under that provision, Defendant may request an abeyance of this proceeding to review returns.
See ORS 305.265(10)(e) (“If [a taxpayer] submits a report or return to the department and
2 Plaintiff’s August 17 filing does not ask for an extension of the August 30 deadline and provides no information
on Plaintiff’s progress in obtaining and submitting the ordered documents.

appeals 	the 	assessment 	to 	the 	tax 	coult, 	the 	department 	may 	request 	a 	stay 	of action 	from 	the
court 	pending 	review 	of the 	report 	or 	retum.") 	(emphasis 	added). 	If Defendant 	accepts 	the 	returns
for 	processing, 	the 	instant 	case 	may 	be 	dismissed 	as 	moot, 	and 	any 	such 	returns 	are 	subject 	to
audit 	and 	adjustment. 	See 	ORS 	305.265(IO)(f) 	(allowing 	department 	to 	examine 	and 	adjust 	the
return).
ANALYSIS
The 	court 	has 	inherent 	discretionary 	authority 	to 	place 	a 	case 	in 	abeyance 	as 	a 	means 	of
managing 	its 	docket. 	See 	Seneca 	Sustainable 	Energy 	v. 	Lane 	County 	Assessor, 	23 	OTR 	I, 	4
(2018) 	(stating 	that 	relevant 	factors 	include 	the 	interests 	of the 	parties, 	the 	convenience 	of the
court 	and 	the 	efficiency 	of its 	processes, 	and 	the 	interests 	of nonlitigants 	and 	the 	public). 	In
general, 	the 	introduction 	of new, 	relevant 	information, 	which 	upon 	review 	and 	conferral 	could
enable 	the 	parties 	to 	reach 	a 	resolution 	that 	will 	make 	a 	case 	moot, 	is 	a 	factor 	that can 	favor
holding 	a 	case 	in 	abeyance. 	In 	this 	case, 	however, 	the 	court 	agrees 	with 	Defendant 	that 	abeyance
would 	be 	premature 	because 	the 	Department 	has 	not 	yet 	received 	any 	tax 	returns 	for 	the 	subject
years. 	To 	date, 	there 	is 	no 	new 	information 	to 	review.
Now, 	therefore,
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff's 	motion 	for 	abeyance 	is 	denied. 	The 	August 	30, 	2023,
deadline 	to 	comply with 	the 	court's 	order 	of August 	9, 	2023, 	remains 	in 	effect.
Dated 	this 	25th 	day 	of August, 	2023.
8/25/2023 2:10:57 	PM
a 	.
Judge 	Robert T. 	Manlcke
Page 	3 	of 3
ORDER 	TC 	5453