Oregon Society of Enrolled Agents v. State ex rel. State Board of Tax Practitioners, 389 P.3d 1153

Oregon State Board of Tax Practitioners adopted OAR 800-020-0015(5) in 2013, requiring enrolled agents to verify 360 hours of work experience during at least two of the last five years to apply for a tax consultant exam.
Oregon Society of Enrolled Agents (petitioner) challenged the rule as exceeding the board’s statutory authority and as potentially preempted by federal law; the court addressed only the statutory-authority claim.
ORS chapter 673 governs licensing of tax consultants/preparers; ORS 673.625 sets general qualifications (including 1,100 hours over two of the last five years for tax consultants).
ORS 673.637(2) provides a specific exception for enrolled agents: the board “shall license” an enrolled agent who has passed the board’s Oregon law exam and otherwise complied with ORS 673.605–673.740, notwithstanding ORS 673.625(1) and (3).
The board argued it could impose additional licensing requirements (e.g., fees, continuing education, and work-experience) not listed in ORS 673.637(2); petitioner argued the statute bars additional work-experience requirements for enrolled agents.
The court reviewed statutory text, context, and legislative history and found OAR 800-020-0015(5) contravened ORS 673.637(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OAR 800-020-0015(5) exceeds the board’s statutory authority by imposing a work-experience requirement on enrolled agents	The board lacks authority to add a 360-hour experience requirement because ORS 673.637(2) exempts enrolled agents from ORS 673.625(1) and (3) and mandates licensing upon passing the exam	The board can impose additional chapter-wide licensing requirements (fees, CE, and experience) because ORS 673.637(2) says enrolled agents must comply with other provisions of chapter 673; “shall” is not strictly limiting here	The rule exceeds the board’s authority and is invalid: ORS 673.637(2) mandates licensing for enrolled agents who pass the exam and exempts them from the work-experience requirement

State v. Newell, 238 Or. App. 385 (Or. App. 2010) (when a rule cannot be reconciled with a statute, the statute controls)
Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or. 562 (Or. 1984) (a rule exceeds an agency’s statutory authority if it contravenes another statute)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation focuses on text and context; legislative history may be consulted)
Stanley Adm. v. Mueller, 211 Or. 198 (Or. 1957) (interpretive note that “shall” is ordinarily imperative)
Pendleton School Dist. v. State of Oregon, 345 Or. 596 (Or. 2009) (meaning of “shall” depends on context)