RLK AND COMPANY v. State Tax Commission

I dissent for the following reasons:

The government’s prohibitions and limitations on plaintiff’s use of the property are so much more restrictive and the government’s interference, use, management and demands on plaintiff are so much more imposing than in Sproul et al v. Gilbert et al, 1961, 226 Or 392, 359 P2d 543, that plantiff’s use of the premises is not a possessory interest as defined in Sproul.

Defendant is estopped for all of the tax years in dispute by the unappealed decree of the tax court for the tax year 1962. See Tait v. Western Maryland R. Co., 1933, 289 US 620, 53 S Ct 706, 77…