Oregon Tax Court Denies Last-Minute Remote Testimony, Keeps In-Person Trial Rule

Oregon Tax Court Slams Door on Last-Minute Remote Trial Bid.

In a sharp rebuke to procedural foot-dragging, the Oregon Tax Court denied taxpayer David Mednansky’s plea to testify remotely via Webex at his February 2026 property tax trial, upholding a long-set in-person mandate. Mednansky, challenging his county’s valuation, cited poverty, age 73, and stress from a prior property inspection dispute—but the court ruled his evidence too vague and untimely. This niche ruling spotlights courts’ post-pandemic pivot back to physical courtrooms, potentially echoing in disputes over crypto asset valuations where taxpayer credibility hangs on live scrutiny.

The saga ignited in a routine property tax appeal: Mednansky sued the Department of Revenue and Curry County Assessor over his land’s assessed value. After a May 2025 case management conference, the court locked in an in-person trial in Salem for February 4-5, 2026, explicitly requiring all parties and witnesses to show up physically, with motions for remote access due 30 days prior. Mednansky flagged travel woes vaguely in an August email to court staff alone, then formally motioned on January 5, 2026—less than a month out—claiming Social Security poverty barred the 250-mile drive, plus fatigue and a “stress condition” from alleged county threats during a site visit. The county and state objected fiercely, arguing his claims lacked proof and that live testimony was vital for credibility in this valuation clash.

Under Tax Court Rule 59 and ORS 45.400, once in-person is set, remote testimony demands “good cause” like proven hardship or illness, without prejudice to opponents. The judges bought Mednansky’s sworn statements as evidence but trashed them as “generalized assertions”: no financial docs despite no prior fee waiver request, age unchanged since May, and stress claims dismissed as overblown paranoia from a resolved inspection spat (no sheriff showed). Timing killed it—why wait nine months? Plaintiff loses big: he must trek to Salem or risk default; county and state win, trial proceeds as planned February 4.

In plain terms, courts won’t bend rules for late, half-baked excuses—show real proof early, or show up. This enforces “in-person by default” post-2022 laws, prioritizing judges’ eyeball test on witness demeanor over Zoom convenience.

No seismic crypto quake here—this is property tax minutiae, not SEC v. Ripple—but it foreshadows friction in the next wave of crypto tax battles, where DeFi yield-farmers and NFT holders dispute IRS valuations of volatile tokens as “property.” Courts may demand physical presence to grill taxpayer tales of “hodl hardship” or stress from chain analysis, stiffening SEC/CFTC probes into exchange reporting and stablecoin holdings treated as taxable assets. Decentralized traders cheer less red tape in theory, but expect trader sentiment to sour on appeals: remote access denials hike costs, chill retail challenges to aggressive commodity classifications, and favor deep-pocketed regulators who thrive in courtrooms, not Discord.

Face the bench or forfeit your fight—crypto tax dodgers, pack your bags.