Ringo v. Dept. of Rev.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL TC 5480 	Page 1 of 2
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Income Tax
CHARLES RINGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5480
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING
AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL
This matter comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed July 15,
2026. The motion argues that Plaintiff’s appeal is moot because Defendant “has reversed the
assessment and is issuing plaintiff a refund.” (Def’s Motion at 1.) Based on subsequent filings,
there is no dispute that the refund has been paid.1 The court thus finds that “there is no
possibility of a practical effect on the tax liability of the taxpayer,” and the case should be
dismissed for that reason. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 OTR 547,
549 (2012). Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
1 On July 23, 2026, the court received from Plaintiff by mail a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss, objecting that he had not yet received the refund, seeking an accounting of how interest was calculated, and
alleging that Defendant sought dismissal for the “improper purpose” of “avoiding inquiry into misconduct in
discovery,” specifically, the excessive redaction of certain documents produced. (Ptf’s Memo at 1.) At the court’s
invitation, Defendant filed a reply on July 29, 2026. The reply included a declaration showing that, as of July 21,
2026, Plaintiff had acknowledged receiving an explanation of Defendant’s computations of interest and depositing
the refund checks. The declaration also alleged that Defendant had produced the redacted documents in 2023 and
informed Plaintiff on July 13, 2026, that the redacted information “would disclose particulars concerning another
taxpayer” that were prohibited from disclosure by ORS 314.835(1). (See Def’s Decl of Weirnick (July 28, 2026) at
1-2 & Ex D at 1.)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL TC 5480 	Page 2 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s outstanding Motion to Compel dated July 9,
2026, is denied as moot.
Dated this 31st day of July, 2026.