Preview:

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Small Claims
Income Tax

DONALD C. GATTEN, )

)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 030915A
)
v. )
) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ) STATE OF OREGON, )
) Defendant. ) DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Plaintiff appealed, asserting that he is exempt from Oregon personal income taxes for the 2000 tax year by virtue of the Amtrak Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1990. Plaintiff appeared and made his arguments. Defendant was represented by Amy Stalnaker, of its staff.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether an employee who drives a Department of Transportation licensed vehicle as a minor part of his regularly assigned duties may claim the benefits of the Amtrak Act.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
During the year at issue Plaintiff, who did not reside in Oregon, worked for Wilbur-Ellis Company. His duties required him to spread fertilizer upon golf courses and, in the alternative, to deliver products to them. Plaintiff's employer stated that Plaintiff's regularly assigned duties required him to spend approximately half his time in Vancouver, Washington, and of that 50 percent, some 10 percent of that time was spent driving a Department of Transportation licensed vehicle. The balance of his time was spent operating a spreader truck, which was not licensed with the Department of Transportation.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT TC-MD 030915A
/ / /



II. ANALYSIS
Federal law exempts certain employees of motor carriers from state income taxes imposed by states other than their state of residency. In order to be exempted, the employee must perform regularly assigned duties in two or more states, and those duties must, in the course of their employment, directly affect commercial motor vehicle safety. This legislation, referred to as the Amtrak Act, is found in 49 USC section 14503 and 49 USC section 31132(2).
According to the letter supplied by Plaintiff's employer, some 5 percent (that is, 10 percent of 50 percent) of Plaintiff's work time was spent driving a truck licensed by the Department of Transportation. Although Defendant recognizes that the federal statute does not impose any minimum time requirements that the employee must spend in another state, Defendant contends it is unfair, or unreasonable, to extend the protection of the legislation to an employee who spends less than 5 percent of his working days driving a Department of Transportation vehicle outside the state.
However, the precedent is very clear. Defendant

Download 030915A_Gatten.pdf

Oregon Law