2011 ORS § 314.620¹

When taxpayer is considered taxable in another state

For purposes of allocation and apportionment of income under ORS 314.280 (Allocation of income of financial institution or public utility from business within and without state) and 314.605 (Short title) to 314.675 (Apportionment of net loss), a taxpayer is taxable in another state if:

(1) In that state the taxpayer is subject to a net income tax, a franchise tax measured by net income, a franchise tax for the privilege of doing business, or a corporate stock tax; or

(2) That state has jurisdiction to subject the taxpayer to a net income tax regardless of whether, in fact, the state does or does not. [1965 c.152 §4]

Notes of Decisions

For allocation of sales under this section, the franchise tax paid to a foreign state must be valid and not merely volunteer tax payments. Miles Laboratories v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 82 (1975), affd 274 Or 395, 546 P2d 1081 (1976)

Where the amounts paid in a foreign state were described as an annual license fee, such fee is not a corporate stock tax for purposes of this section. Miles Laboratories v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 82 (1975), affd 274 Or 395, 546 P2d 1081 (1976)

Plaintiffs activities gave Washington jurisdiction to impose a net income tax and allowed for allocation of sales under this section. Miles Laboratories v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 82 (1975), affd 274 Or 395, 546 P2d 1081 (1976)

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 taxpayers 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), affd 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), affd 293 Or 138, 645 P2d 27 (1982)

Plaintiffs use of apportionment method was proper because separate accounting would not fairly represent extent of plaintiffs 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 taxpayers business activity in Oregon. Crocker Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 314 Or 122, 838 P2d 552 (1992)

2011 ORS § 314.620¹ When taxpayer is considered taxable in another state

2011 ORS § 314.620¹

When taxpayer is considered taxable in another state