Property tax refund for 1973 due for renters
By LEE SIEGEL
Of the Emerald
If you live in a rented house,
apartment, or privately owned
fraternity, sorority, or
cooperative, the State of Oregon
owes you money.
“Every renter has a right to
income tax relief unless the place
he or she lives in is not subject to
property taxes,” according to
Neil Robblee, staff attorney for
Oregon Student Public Interest
Research Group (OSPIRG).
This means that all renters
except those living in dor
mitories, married student
housing, University owned
cooperatives, or other publicly
owned housing, are eligible for
refunds on their 1973 state income
Lax. Refund forms (Form 70-R)
will be included in 1973 Oregon
income tax packets.
Income tax not a factor
Robblee emphasizes the fact
that “even if you pay no income
tax at all, you are still eligible for
a refund for rent you
have paid in 1973.” People not
filing tax returns must fill out and
mail form 70-R to receive a
refund on rent paid during the
year.
The new tax break for renters
applies to all rent paid since
January 1, 1973, but not to
cleaning deposits or other non
rent payments. In order to get the
refund, renters must attach a
property tax refund claim (Form
70-R) to their 1973 state income
tax return. A rent certificate
from the landlord must also be
attached.
Landlords are obligated under
the new law to provide rent
certificates to all people who
have rented from them during
1973 If the landlord has not
supplied a certificate, the renter
should request one.
Since the new law applies to all
rent paid in 1973, renters should
get certificates from their
current landlord, and from any
other landlord whose housing
they have occupied in 1973.
If a renter shares a house or an
apartment with other people,
only the person with the lowest
1973 income should file for the
refund. It is that person’s
responsibility to divide the refund
with his present or former
roommates.
Married couples, however,
must file on the basis of all in
come, taxable or not.
Because students often live in
different locations and with
different roommates during the
year, the process can become
complicated. The following
example should help to clarify
the problems involved.
Suppose John Student lived in
Eugene with two other people
during the winter and spring
terms of 1973, lived in Portland
with his parents during the
summer, and is now living with
two different roommates during
the fall term of 1973.
John is eligible for refunds on
rent paid during the winter,
spring and fall terms of 1973. He
is not eligible for a refund on
summer housing because he lived
with his parents. (If they are
renters, they are eligible for a
refund on their own.)
John must talk with his two
roommates from winter and
spring terms and decide who had
the lowest income in 1973. That
person then attaches the property
tax refund claim to his 1973 state
tax return when he files it after
January 1, 1974. When he
receives the refund, he must split
it with his former roommates.
Only one person per household
may file a refund claim.
John must repeat the same
process with his current (fall
term 1973) roommates.
Filer should have lowest income
Now suppose John has a lower
1973 income than any of his old or
current roommates, or has no
income at all. If this is the case,
he includes property tax refund
claims for the winter and spring
term housing and fall term
housing, along with rent cer
tificates from both landlords.
When he gets the refund, it
must be divided among himself,
his two old roommates and his
two new roommates. It is John’s
responsibility to figure out what
proportion of the refund goes to
each person.
Most students are eligible for
the new tax break, which was
created to give property tax
Analysis
relief to renters who pay property
tax indirectly through their rent.
(Property owners already
receive property tax relief
through an income tax refund.)
Only those students who are
non-residents and who will not be
returning to an Oregon school
after January 1, 1974 are
ineligible for relief.
The new tax relief program will
give renters an income tax
refund of up to $245 or 17 percent
of their 1973 rent, whichever is
less, depending on the 1973
earnings of the renter who files
the claim.
The reason the person with the
lowest income in the household
should apply for the refund is that
he or she will get back a larger
refund than other roommates
with higher incomes.
Memorandum sent out
OSPIRG sent a memorandum
to fraternities, sororities, and
private cooperatives informing
them of the new law. As “land
lords,” the owners of such
housing must provide each renter
with a rent certificate. Each
fraternity, sorority, or co-op
member then attaches it to a
refund claim which is filed with
his or her state income tax.
Renters in such housing can
only claim that amount of their
total payment that goes for rent.
Payment for food, cook’s wages,
deposits and advance payments
may not be claimed.
Greeks, co-ops exempt for 1973
The tax break applies to
fraternities, sororities and co-ops
only for 1973 rent. After January
1, 1974, all such living
organizations are exempt from
property taxes altogether if the
property is owned by a non-profit
corporation, rooms are rented
exclusively to students or faculty
members during the school year,
and are rented regardless of
race, creed, color, or national
origin.
Persons with questions about
the changes in tax law should
write to the Department of
Revenue, State of Oregon, Salem,
Oregon 97310, or contact the
ASUO Housing office, room 319
EMU, 686-3731.
College faculty firings in South
bring about litigation fromACLU
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation and ACLU of
Mississippi filed suit in Federal
District Court last week against
the University of Southern
Mississippi for dismissing faculty
members directly or indirectly
associated with campus chapters
of the ACLU and the Progressive
Student Association (PSA).
According to the ACLU’s
complaint, Sanford Wood, a
philosophy professor, six weeks
after he was appointed ACLU
faculty adviser, was notified his
contract would not be renewed
for the 1973-74 academic year.
The campus ACLU chapter was
formed a year ago after the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit enjoined the University
from continuing to ban the
organization. Wood agreed to be
adviser to the chapter because
In campus planning subcommittee reports
Planning awareness urged
The need for greater public awareness of the
planning process was stressed as sub-committee
progress reports were heard by the Campus
Planning Committee during its luncheon session in
101 EMU yesterday.
The employment of the pattern language and
diagnostic process adopted by the committee was
also of concern to the group.
The new planning process outlined in “The
Oregon Experiment” was submitted to University
President Robert Clark for approval. The basis of
the plan is the use of conceptual units called pat
terns in planning. Patterns are used to describe a
variety of recurring situations on the campus, such
as parking and university size.
Chairer Jerry Diethelm indicated that there
was a need to develop a better community un
derstanding of how the planning process works. He
noted that student member John Meadows had
submitted a letter recommending that steps be
taken to inform members of the University com
munity about patterns and how they are in
corporated into the diagnostic and planning
process.
One of the goals of the Open Spaces sub
committee is to help those proposing various
projects to use the patterns language, according to
Thom Hacker, chairer of the group.
He noted that a proposal to add a porch and
entrance to Lawrence Hall is one of the projects
currently being reviewed by the sub-committee.
The suggestion of providing a public map
showing locations of projects and other means of
encouraging greater participation in the planning
process were discussed.
Members of the neighborhood sub-committee
noted that projects in the Amazon and West
moreland housing areas have not been included as
part of the committee’s campus review. It was
stated that the housing areas should be considered
as part of the campus in the planning process.
Some members of the committee defended the
current system, pointing out that all projects had to
be approved by President Clark.
The housing projects fall under the review of
the committee, said Diethelm. He added that the
University needed campus-wide planning
procedures and special areas should not be ex
cluded
In other business, reports were heard from sub
committees covering centennial projects, building
rehabilitation, transportation, and building use.
the students could not find
another faculty member who was
willing to serve, the lawsuit says.
The other plaintiff in the case is
author William Norwood, Jr.,
who was asked to resign in the
summer of 1971. The previous
fall, when Norwood was chair
man of the English department,
he had refused to obey an order to
recommend dismissal of the
faculty adviser to the PSA
because he was “controversial.”
ACLU charges the University
with a broad “practice and
policy” of suppressing dissent.
The lawsuit cites University
surveillance of an ACLU chapter
meeting and dismissal of all
faculty members who attended,
dismissal of all faculty advisers
to the PSA, harassment of other
politically aQtive faculty
members, and speaker bans.
The suit asks reinstatement of
the two professors, damages of
approximately $70,000 apiece,
and a court order restraining
further University harassment of
ACLU and PSA members, sup
porters and advisers.
Review committee created
for state board candidates
Gov. Tom McCall announced Monday the creation of a
special review committee to interview 25 students nominated
for two new positions on the State Board of Higher Education.
Named by the Governor were State Rep. Norma Paulus (R
Salem); State Sen. Keith Burbidge (D-Salem); Malcolm Bauer,
associate editor, The Oregonian editorial page, representing
Colleges for Oregon’s Future; Elizabeth Myers of Salem, for
mer schoolteacher and former secretary of the Portland
Citizens’ School Committee; and Ron Schmidt, the governor’s
administrative assistant. Bauer will serve as chairman.
The committee will meet on December 7, in the Governor’s
Conference Room in the Capitol to interview the students. The
meeting will begin at 9 a.m.
The 1973 Legislature increased the size of the State Board of
Higher Education from nine to 11 members, and specified that
the two new members must be students. The Legislature also
required the governor to consider nominations made by the
eight undergraduate schools in the State System of Higher
Education. The governor is empowered to choose from outside
the list of names suggested, however.
The review committee will make recommendations to the
governor following the interviews, and McCall will make the
appointments in the following week.
The two new members will be sworn in at the Jan. 21 meeting
of the Board of Higher Education.
I happy thanxgivmg sb from your friends at the ode|