Taxes Imposed Upon or Measured by Net Income

ORS 314.615
When allocation and apportionment of net income from business activity required


Any taxpayer having income from business activity which is taxable both within and without this state, other than activity as a financial institution or public utility or the rendering of purely personal services by an individual, shall allocate and apportion the net income of the taxpayer as provided in ORS 314.605 (Short title) to 314.675 (Apportionment of net loss). Taxpayers engaged in activities as a financial institution or public utility shall report their income as provided in ORS 314.280 (Allocation of income of financial institution or public utility from business within and without state) and 314.675 (Apportionment of net loss). [1965 c.152 §3; 2001 c.793 §6; 2001 c.933 §5; 2009 c.403 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Prescribed method of accounting under ORS 314.605 to 314.670, Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, is apportionment method. Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 263 Or 26, 500 P2d 1041 (1972)

Party, whether taxpayer or Department of Revenue, who seeks to invoke applicability of this section has burden of proof. Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 263 Or 26, 500 P2d 1041 (1972)

Dependent-and-contributing test is proper test for determining whether vertically integrated parent and subsidiary constitutes unitary business for purposes of taxation. Coca-Cola Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 271 Or 517, 533 P2d 788 (1975)

§§ 314.605 to 314.670

Notes of Decisions

Interest income from long-term investments of an interstate corporation is not attributable to Oregon unless it arises from transactions in the regular course of the taxpayer's business within the state. Sperry & Hutchinson v. Dept. of Rev., 270 Or 329, 527 P2d 729 (1974)

It was not abuse of discretion for Revenue Department to require corporations to file combined rather than consolidated corporate excise tax returns where one corporation owned at least 95 percent of voting stock of other. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 236 (1979), aff'd 289 Or 895, 618 P2d 1261 (1980)

The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the authority to impose a brief moratorium on the collection of taxes for "insured depositories" in order to permit the development of a uniform state taxing system. Pac. First Fed. Savings & Loan v. Dept. of Revenue, 8 OTR 466 (1980), aff'd 293 Or 138, 645 P2d 27 (1982)

Plaintiff's use of apportionment method was proper because separate accounting would not fairly represent extent of plaintiff's business activities in Oregon. Lane v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 168 (1985)

Intangible drilling and development costs (IDCs) should be included in property factor for purposes of apportioning income to Oregon. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 301 Or 242, 722 P2d 727 (1986)

Exclusion of intangible property from formula to determine Oregon business income of California financial organization engaged in owning, leasing and financing tangible personal property did not represent fair apportionment of taxpayer's business activity in Oregon. Crocker Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 314 Or 122, 838 P2d 552 (1992)

Law Review Citations

17 WLR 487 (1981)

Chapter 314

Law Review Citations

9 WLJ 249 (1973); 5 EL 516 (1975)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021