Taxes Imposed Upon or Measured by Net Income

ORS 314.645
Allocation to this state of patent and copyright royalties


(1)

Patent and copyright royalties are allocable to this state (a) if and to the extent that the patent or copyright is utilized by the payer in this state, or (b) if and to the extent that the patent or copyright is utilized by the payer in a state in which the taxpayer is not taxable and the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state.

(2)

A patent is utilized in a state to the extent that it is employed in production, fabrication, manufacturing, or other processing in the state or to the extent that a patented product is produced in the state. If the basis of receipts from patent royalties does not permit allocation to states or if the accounting procedures do not reflect states of utilization, the patent is utilized in the state in which the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is located.

(3)

A copyright is utilized in a state to the extent that printing or other publication originates in the state. If the basis of receipts from copyright royalties does not permit allocation to states or if the accounting procedures do not reflect states of utilization, the copyright is utilized in the state in which the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is located. [1965 c.152 §9]
§§ 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