Seeley v. Portland Public Schools

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 1 of 12
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Mandamus; Review
Personal Income Tax
THERESA M. SEELEY,
Plaintiff-Relator.
v.
PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5489
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF
REVIEW, AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the court on Relator’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus per
ORS 34.120(2),” which the court alternatively considers as a petition for writ of review.
Defendant in this case is Relator’s former employer, Portland Public Schools. Simultaneous
with her petition in this case, Relator filed a similarly titled petition against the Oregon
Department of Revenue in TC 5488. Perceiving some potential overlap, the court ordered a joint
initial hearing and briefing to determine whether to issue either type of writ in either or both
cases. This order refers to, and should be read together with, the order issued today in TC 5488.
In this case, Relator asks the court to order Defendant to take 10 actions related to her
compensation and retirement benefits for services performed from 1992 through 2022. (See
Rel’s Petition at 7 (listing Requests 1 through 10); see id. at 1 (“NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
Failure of Statutory Duties of Reporting and Remitting by Property Rights-ORS238 TIER One &
Employee Worker Status for all Years of employment for tax, pension, and FICA purposes all

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 2 of 12
years of employment 1992-2022 and thereafter.”).) Applying the Oregon Supreme Court’s
framework in Sanok v. Grimes, the court first determines that these requested actions constitute
four claims for an order requiring Defendant to (1) correct tax information returns, as well as
certain reports filed for purposes of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), to
enable Relator to pursue additional benefits under the PERS retirement plan, and possibly also
under social security laws; (2) remit to the respective taxing authorities the employee share of
federal social security and Medicare taxes (FICA) and Oregon income tax that Defendant
withheld from Relator’s pay, as well as the employer share of FICA that Defendant owed
directly, and arguably to remit retirement contributions to PERS; (3) pay Relator approximately
$240,000 in “Missing Salary”; and (4) pay Relator damages for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and punitive damages in connection with alleged fraud. See Sanok v. Grimes,
294 Or 684, 662 P2d 693 (1983).
The court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Relator’s claims and
therefore cannot issue either type of writ. Relator’s Claims (1), (2), and (4) are outside the
court’s jurisdiction because they do not affect Relator’s tax liability. Claim (3) is a wage claim,
as to which Oregon statutes expressly vest jurisdiction outside this court.
I. 	ISSUES
A. Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 305.410 to order the
actions Relator requests.
B. To the extent that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, whether Relator
has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law such that issuance of any writ
of mandamus is precluded.
C. To the extent that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, whether the court
should issue a writ of review in lieu of a writ of mandamus.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 3 of 12
II. ANALYSIS
A. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction
ORS 34.120(2) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he regular division of the Oregon Tax
Court shall have jurisdiction in mandamus proceedings in all cases within its jurisdiction as
described in ORS 305.410 * * * .”1 Under Oregon Supreme Court case law, to determine
jurisdiction under ORS 305.410, this court undertakes a three-part analysis:
“1. 	Identify the ‘subject matter of each claim.’ Sanok, 294 Or at 689 n 22.
“2. 	Determine whether any statute ‘expressly’ or ‘positively’ (id. at 692)
“a. 	Precludes jurisdiction in this court (see, e.g., ORS 305.410(1)(a)-(o) (listing
provisions that ‘are not tax laws of this state’));
“b. 	Confers jurisdiction in this court (see, e.g., ORS 320.330 (providing for
‘appeals to the Oregon Tax Court’)); or
“c. 	Confers jurisdiction in a different court (see Sanok, 294 Or at 692 n 6
(‘Where jurisdiction over a case is positively located in another court, then
that procedural fact implies that the case is not one “‘arising under the tax
laws’” and is not within the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.”).)
“If the legislature has expressly defined jurisdiction in any of these ways, no
further analysis is needed.
“3. 	If no statute expressly precludes or confers jurisdiction, determine whether the
matter arises under the ‘tax laws of this state,’ a term that the legislature has
defined only by the list of exclusions in ORS 305.410(1). See id. at 692. The
Supreme Court’s framework aids in this task by providing:
“a. 	‘Questions which must be resolved in order to decide taxability or the
amount of tax do arise under the tax laws.’ Sanok, 294 Or at 697.
“b. 	A ‘claim is not one “‘arising under the tax laws’” unless it has some bearing
on tax liability.’ Id. at 701.”
Hefflinger v. Dept of Rev., __ OTR __ (Oct 9, 2025) (slip op at 3-4).
1 References to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2025 edition.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 4 of 12
1. Analysis of Relator’s Claims.
Turning to the first step, identifying the subject matter of each claim, the court starts with
a list in the petition reciting 10 actions that Relator asks the court to command Defendant to
perform (each, a Request):
1. 	“Immediate W2 Corrections: perform corrections to W2s for pension type as IRS 401(a),
Gross Salary aka Total Compensation for tax, FICA and PERS purposes[.]
“a) correctio[n] to W2 Box 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, all years :
“b) W2 Box 11 correction for Pension Type and Worker Status;
“c) According to reporting for “full” FICA,
“d) to include all cash and non-cash salary with IRS codes for: MPPT and MPAT: 1992-
2022;
“e) Correction of portioner’s Worker Status to Employee Worker Status;
“f) reporting and remitting to affiliated agencies for FICA, IRS, SSA, PERS.;
2. 	“Immediate Correction to PERS ER data for Final Average Salary by PPS-ACS Total
Compensation, Total Compensation, all years, Corrected Creditable Service: 2017, 2018;
Correct Job Class to General Service 2009-2022, and thereafter; and for FICA Salary,
Severance from Employment: January 2021;
3. 	“Release all MPAT for the PERS ORS238 Regular Account: 1993-2003 and IAP
Account, HB2020 (2003)-a) Release of all ORS401(a), (aka ORS238 TIER One MPPT,
MPAT) remittances: 1993-2022, by correct Total Compensation, and without reductions,
as owed to the pension accounts of the Relator, per 26 CFR, IRS Publication 15-E, IRS
VCSP program, PL 101-508, Approved 11/5/1990, ORS238.660, 238.710, IRS VCPS
rules, HB3262, HB 2020, 2020 BCCA, SSA rules, for correction of Monetary Values:
4. 	“Remit and Release funds for FICA purposes by corrected Salary, Gross Salary, Total
Compensation, not Net Wages aka Actual Wages all years by ORS238 TIER One plan
provisions, Employee Worker Status, and correct Salary Base, 1992-2022 and
thereafter;”
5. 	Remit “the [employer] share of FICA taxes at the corrected Salary Base by Total
Compensation not Net Salary for FICA remittances, and Employee Worker Status, all
years, 1999-2022 by PPS and as the successor [employer] * * * ;”
6. 	“Release of all unremitted W2 Box 17, State of Oregon Taxes, 2014-2022, and all years
of this pattern.;”
7. 	“PERS Benefit Determinations for life-time payment without reductions.”

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 5 of 12
8. 	Correct and complete “new benefit estimates and entitlements for IAP determination and
lump sum payment August 2022 without reductions.;”
9. 	Remit “Missing Salary 2014-2021 – about $240,000.”
10. Order “Punitive damages according to IRS, Tort regulations for emotional distress,
evasion of law, intentional reporting and remitting errors, per incident.”
(Rel’s Petition at 17 (emphases omitted).)
Applying the first part of the Sanok analysis, the court sorts the 10 Requests into
“claims,” grouping the Requests based on “significant factual overlap” and on whether they
assert a single “legal right” or a single “recovery.” See Dept. of Rev. v. Universal Foods Corp.,
311 Or 537, 547-49, 815 P2d 1237 (1991) (considering definition of “claim” for purposes of
limited judgment rule under Tax Court Rule (TCR) 67 B); see also Seeley v. Dept. of Rev., __
OTR __ (TC 5488) (July 13, 2026) (slip op at 6). In doing so, the court draws from the narrative
in Relator’s Petition and the other filings to date. By this method, the court concludes that
Relator’s 10 Requests raise the following four claims.
Claim (1): Failure to correctly report data on pay, tax, or retirement plan reports.
Applying the first part of Sanok, the court determines that Requests 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 constitute a
single claim for an order requiring Defendant to perform the following tasks as preconditions to
additional benefits for Relator under the PERS retirement plan, or possibly under social security
laws, or both:2
• 	Correct data on Forms W-2 (Request 1).
• 	Correct Oregon PERS data (Requests 2, 7, and 8).
2 These Requests and others may arise from an argument by Relator that Defendant misclassified her as an
independent contractor for payments as to which she was actually an employee. (See Rel’s Petition at 1-2 (“These
W2 changes falsify retirement type + worker status, without a legal basis, + by deceipt [sic]. A change from W2 Box
13 to Box 11 falsifies Oregon pension type + worker status to opposite/different investment (IRS 457) +
Independent Contractor when IRS 401(a)/ORS 238 Tier 1 + Employee Worker Status applies, and did this change
without a legal basis + BY DECEPTION.”).)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 6 of 12
• 	Deliver data to PERS regarding “Member Paid After Tax” amounts that Relator earned
(Request 3).3
Applying the second part of Sanok, the court is aware of no statute that expressly confers
or precludes jurisdiction in any court for an employee’s claim for incorrect tax reporting that is
not ancillary to a claim for a tax refund or the reduction of a tax assessment. Cf. Seeley v. Dept.
of Rev., __ OTR __ (July 13, 2026) (slip op at 7). Oregon law, building on federal law, does
impose substantial information reporting requirements, such as annual wage reporting on Internal
Revenue Service Form W-2 and reporting of other income paid on Form 1099. See id. (slip op at
7 n 3 (“Oregon relies to a substantial extent on federal tax information reporting requirements,
generally requiring copies of federal forms to also be filed with Defendant. See
ORS 314.360(1).”).) However, the court is not aware of any statute prescribing jurisdiction in a
specific court for a claim by an employee or a payee to require an employer or a payor to correct
those information returns. See id. (slip op at 9). Oregon law also requires an employer to
correctly report earnings data for purposes of the PERS retirement plan. See ORS 238.705;
238.707; OAR 459-009-0100(2)(a) (requiring public employers to transmit to PERS an itemized
report including wage, service, and demographic data for all employees for a pay period.)
However, Relator identifies no statute that allows a claim by an employee that the employer has
failed to do so, much less a statute conferring jurisdiction on any court to adjudicate such a
claim. Cf. ORS 238.710 (authorizing PERS board to request a writ of mandamus in circuit court
compelling information from the public employer). The court thus concludes that no statute
expressly confers or precludes jurisdiction in this court or another court.
3 Alternatively, based on the words “release” and “remittances,” Request 3 can be read to seek an order
directing Defendant to transfer money to PERS, not merely data. Under this alternative reading, the court would
treat Request 3 as part of Claim (2), discussed below.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 7 of 12
Moving to the third part of the Sanok analysis, the court concludes that Claim (1) need
not “be resolved in order to decide taxability or the amount of tax,” nor does it “ha[ve] some
bearing on tax liability.” Sanok, 294 Or at 697, 701. It is true that, if Relator were to prevail on
her first claim, the corrected data might support one or more additional claims by Relator, such
as a claim for additional retirement pay, which might in turn affect the amount of personal
income tax she owes for one or more years. But the likelihood, amount, and timing of any such
additional claim--and therefore any effect on Relator’s gross receipts, gross income, or taxable
income for any particular year--are entirely speculative. See Deras v. Dept. of Rev., __ OTR __
(Apr 6, 2026) (slip op at 10-12) (explaining steps and factors in computing taxable income and
tax liability). The court concludes that Claim (1) is outside this court’s jurisdiction to the same
extent as a claim for other kinds of recovery, such as under tort or contract law, that if successful
could result in a payment that might be within the definition of gross income and that might,
when combined with other factors, affect Relator’s tax liability for one or more years.
Claim (2): Failure to remit employment taxes or PERS contributions. Under the first
part of the Sanok analysis, the court determines that Requests 4, 5, and 6 ask the court to order
Defendant to remit to the respective taxing authorities the employee share of federal social
security and Medicare taxes (FICA) and Oregon income tax that Defendant withheld from
Relator’s pay, as well as the employer share of FICA that Defendant owed directly. And as
noted above, the court finds that Request 3 can be read to seek an order directing Defendant to
remit money to PERS, presumably retirement contributions. The court proceeds to the second
part of the Sanok analysis.
Starting with employment taxes, the court is not aware of any statute that expressly
confers or precludes jurisdiction in any court for a claim by an employee against an employer for
failure to remit withheld Oregon withholding tax or FICA, or for failure to pay the employer’s

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 8 of 12
own share of FICA. Oregon law and federal law require an employer to withhold income tax
and the employee share of FICA from an employee’s wages and to remit those amounts to the
respective taxing authority, and federal law imposes tax directly on an employer for the
employer share of FICA. See ORS 316.167(1) (requiring withholding of personal income tax
from wages); ORS 316.168(1)-(3) (requiring quarterly reporting and remittance of withheld
amounts and taxes directly owed); IRC § 3401(a)4 (requiring withholding of federal income tax);
IRC § 3102(a) (requiring withholding of employee share of social security tax and Medicare
tax); IRC § 3111(a)-(b) (imposing social security tax and Medicare tax on employer); Treas Reg
§ 31.6151-1(a) (taxes payable when return is filed); Treas Reg § 31.6011(a)-1(a) (FICA returns
generally due quarterly); Treas Reg § 31.6011(a)-4(a) (same for returns of income tax
withholding). Strong remedies allow the state or federal government to collect unremitted tax
from the employer, and even from certain individuals associated with the employer. See
ORS 316.207 (employer deemed to hold withheld tax in trust for state; allowing Defendant to
collect unremitted amounts by issuance of distraint warrant; officer, employee, or member of
employer may be personally liable); IRC § 3403 (employer responsible for payment of tax
required to be deducted and withheld); IRC § 6672 (imposing 100-percent penalty on officer or
other “person” who willfully fails to pay amounts required to be collected and paid over).
However, an employee is credited with the amount of personal income tax reported as withheld
regardless of whether the employer remits it. See ORS 316.187 (“The amounts deducted from
the wages of an employee * * * shall be considered to be in part payment of the tax on such
employee’s income * * *.”) (emphasis added); IRC § 3402(d) (describing employee income tax
4 References to the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and to United States Treasury Regulations
thereunder (Treas Reg) are to the respective editions in effect as of the date of this order.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 9 of 12
as “the tax against which [withheld employment taxes] may be credited”). This credit would
seem to explain why the court has found no statute creating, or expressly assigning jurisdiction to
any court, for an employee’s claim for failure to remit employment taxes withheld from the
employee’s wages. See generally OAR 150-316-0336 (“Recourse against an employer in regard
to taxes on wages withheld and reported, but not paid to the Department of Revenue, is
exclusively that of the state. An employee’s rights as to any such tax withheld, reported and
unpaid are those of a tax credit or refund as provided in ORS 316.187 and OAR 150-316-
0295.”).
Similarly, assuming that Relator’s Request 3 is read as a request to compel Defendant to
“release” or “remit[ ]” retirement plan contribution amounts to PERS, the court has found no
statute that expressly contemplates an action by an employee against an employer to enforce the
payment of contributions.5
The court concludes that no statute expressly confers or precludes jurisdiction in any
court for Relator’s Claim 2.
The court proceeds to apply the third part of the Sanok analysis to the alleged failures of
Defendant to remit either employment taxes or retirement contribution amounts. As to both
alleged failures, the court concludes that Relator’s tax liability is unaffected. As discussed
above, because an employee may be credited with tax amounts withheld, regardless of whether
the employer remits those amounts, an employer’s failure to remit does not “affect tax liability.”
5 PERS’ administrative rules do allow a person to seek administrative and judicial review of a PERS staff
action or determination. Persons dissatisfied with the outcome may, as an initial matter, request a contested case
hearing. See OAR 459-001-0030(2) (allowing request for review); id. at (9)(b) (allowing request for contested case
hearing). A person aggrieved by a contested case order issued by PERS may appeal the order to the Oregon Court
of Appeals; a person aggrieved by an other than contested case order may appeal to the appropriate circuit court.
See ORS 183.310(1) (defining agency); ORS 183.482(1) (allowing appeal of contested case orders in the Court of
Appeals); ORS 183.484(1) (allowing appeal of other than contested case orders in circuit court).

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 10 of 12
An employee’s tax liability is equally unaffected by the employer’s failure to pay taxes imposed
directly on the employer, such as the employer’s share of FICA. And to the extent that Relator
alleges that Defendant failed to pay to PERS money “owed to the pension accounts of the
Relator,” the court finds any effect on Relator’s tax liability speculative, as discussed in the
analysis of Claim (1) above. (Rel’s Petition at 17.)
Accordingly, the court concludes that Relator’s Claim (2) does not arise under the tax
laws of this state because any failures of Defendant to remit taxes or retirement-related payments
have no effect on Relator’s tax liability.
Claim (3): Failure to pay salary. Request 9 seeks an order that Defendant must
“[r]emit” “Missing Salary” for 2014 to 2021, amounting to “about $240,000.” Applying the first
part of the Sanok analysis, the court understands Relator to assert that this amount should be
remitted to her, not to tax authorities or to her retirement benefit administrator. The court,
therefore, treats this as a claim for unpaid wages. Claims for unpaid wages may be resolved
through a Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) contested case hearing or through an other than
contested case hearing; or they may be resolved by either a justice court or a circuit court, as
those courts expressly share concurrent jurisdiction for wage claims. See ORS 652.330, 652.332
(describing BOLI’s enforcement powers in wage claims); ORS 652.370(1) (expressly conferring
concurrent jurisdiction for wage claims in justice courts and circuit courts).
Under the second part of the Sanok analysis, because ORS 652.370(1) expressly confers
jurisdiction for wage claims in other courts, Claim (3) is outside the Tax Court’s jurisdiction.
Claim (4): Tort claims. In Request 10, the court concludes that Relator asserts a claim
for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), along with an allegation that the

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 11 of 12
circumstances support an award of punitive damages.6 Regardless of whether this claim also can
be characterized as a claim for fraud, as Defendant argues, it falls outside this court’s jurisdiction
because it is a tort claim. Relator identifies no statute that confers or precludes jurisdiction in
this court or any other. The claim does not affect taxability or the amount of tax. Like the tort
claims in Sanok, Claim (4) likely would be heard in a circuit court under the theory of residual
jurisdiction. 	See Hefflinger v. Dept. of Rev. __ OTR __ (Oct 9, 2025) (slip op at 10-11)
(discussing residual jurisdiction in circuit courts pursuant to Or Const, Art VII (Original), § 9).
2. Conclusion as to Subject Matter Jurisdiction
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that none of Relator’s four claims falls
within this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court must dismiss the petition.
B. 	Adequate Remedy
Having concluded that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Relator’s
claims, the court does not reach the issue of whether Relator has a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy at law that would preclude issuance of a writ of mandamus.
C. 	Writ of Review
Having concluded that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of
Relator’s claims, the court is prohibited under ORS 34.030(2) from reviewing them.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
6 Request 10 refers to “[p]unitive damages according to IRS.” The court reads this as a request for state-
law punitive damages as part of Relator’s IIED claim. To the extent that Relator seeks punitive damages arising
under federal tax law, she has cited no authority for such a request, nor is this court aware of any such authority.
Request 10 also includes a reference to “evasion of law,” without elaboration, which the court reads as part of Claim
(1) (inaccurate reporting) or Claim 2 (failure to remit amounts owed).

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF REVIEW, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TC 5489 	Page 12 of 12
III. 	ORDERS
For the foregoing reasons, now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff-Relator’s petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition is denied as
moot to the extent based on other grounds.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2026.