Pechenyuk v. Dept. of Rev.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
STAY OF PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
TC 5485 	Page 1 of 2
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
REGULAR DIVISION
Income Tax
VERA V. PECHENYUK and VITALIY N.
PECHENYUK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
State of Oregon,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TC 5485
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR STAY OF PAYMENT OF
INCOME TAX AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’
subsequent Motion for Stay of Payment of Income Tax.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is based solely on the ground that, as of the date of their
complaint, Plaintiffs had failed to either (1) pay the income tax, penalty and interest as assessed
or (2) move to stay payment due to undue hardship. See ORS 305.419(1), (3).
On September 3, 2025, the court issued a Notice of Lack of Affidavit Alleging Undue
Hardship. The notice allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to move for stay of payment of income tax, with
an accompanying affidavit. Plaintiffs filed their motion and affidavit on October 3, 2025. They
served Defendant no later than October 14, 2025; Defendant agreed to accept service by email
and has not raised a question about the timeliness of service. On October 24, 2025, Defendant
notified the court that it has no objection to Plaintiffs’ motion.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
STAY OF PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
TC 5485 	Page 2 of 2
Based on Plaintiffs’ affidavit, the court finds as follows: Plaintiffs are employed, but their
monthly income from work exceeds their living expenses only modestly, if at all.1 They report
no other sources of income. They report little cash on deposit, and their other assets are few and
substantially encumbered. The court concludes that requiring immediate payment of the
assessment would create an undue hardship for Plaintiffs.
After reviewing the motion and being fully advised of the premises, the court finds that
Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted, and for that reason Defendant’s motion should be denied.
Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay of Payment of Income Tax is granted
pending final judgment in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. Defendant
is directed to file its response to Plaintiffs’ complaint within 10 days of this order.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.
1 The court found some of Plaintiffs’ handwritten entries difficult to read, but the court recomputed their
income and expenses using alternative interpretations. The court’s findings reflect the interpretations least favorable
to Plaintiffs.