
    Submitted on the record April 17,
    judgment of Oregon Tax Court affirmed July 17, 2003
    Edward W. ARNOLD and Edith Arnold, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent.
    
    (OTC 4384; SC S48786)
    72 P3d 634
    Edward W. Arnold, appellant pro se, filed the briefs for himself and Edith Arnold. With him on the briefs was Edith Arnold.
    Douglas M. Adair, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Jerry Bronner, Assistant Attorney General.
    Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from an Oregon Tax Court judgment that denied taxpayers $58,934 in credits that they claimed on their 1995 Oregon income tax return. Taxpayers assert that the Oregon Department of Revenue (department) violated its own administrative rules when collecting state income tax from taxpayers. They argue that the Oregon tax system has “connected” with the federal tax system, permitting them to claim as tax credits damages for improper action of department employees.

The Magistrate Division held that taxpayers’ claim for tax credits was improper. It also denied the department’s request for an award of damages against taxpayers for filing a frivolous appeal under ORS 305.437. The tax court affirmed and rejected the department’s repeated requests for damages.

On appeal to this court, taxpayers argue that the tax court erred by denying, inter alia, taxpayers’ motion for a mistrial, motion for judicial disqualification, and motions to subpoena Governor Kitzhaber, and nullifying their citizens’ arrest of the Assistant Attorneys General at trial. Taxpayers also assert that the trial transcript is inaccurate and that the tax court erred in refusing to allow them to summon their witnesses. The department has withdrawn its damages request.

We have considered each of taxpayers’ arguments in support of their appeal and conclude that none is well taken. We also conclude that an extensive opinion by this court would be unlikely to benefit the public, bar, and bench.

The judgment of the Oregon Tax Court is affirmed.  