ORS 308.550¹
Valuing property of company operating both within and without state

(1) When a company owns, leases, operates over or uses rail, wire, pipe or pole lines, operational routes or property within and without this state, if the department values the entire property within and without this state as a unit, it may ascertain the property subject to taxation in Oregon by the proportion which the number of miles of rail, wire, pipe or pole lines or operational routes in Oregon, controlled or used by the company, as owner, lessee, or otherwise, bears to the entire mileage of rail, wire, pipe or pole lines or operational routes controlled or used by the company, as owner, lessee, or otherwise.

(2) If the value of any property having a situs in this state, of a company operating both within and without the state, cannot fairly be determined in the manner prescribed in subsection (1) of this section, the Department of Revenue may use any other reasonable method to determine the proper proportion of the entire property assessable for taxation in this state.

(3) The assessed value of the property of a water transportation company apportioned or allocated to Oregon shall not reflect so much of the value of its watercraft as is fairly attributable to voyages made by such watercraft exclusively on the high seas or between inland water ports or termini and the high seas. Voyages made to Oregon ports for the sole purpose or purposes of picking up or discharging company personnel, making repairs, refitting, or taking on supplies shall not be used for allocation or apportionment purposes. [Amended by 1955 c.735 §2; 1991 c.459 §147; 1997 c.541 §207]

Notes of Decisions

The method used by the Depart­ment of Revenue to determine the assess­ment value of the taxpayers' flatcars, which method took into account the "going concern" value attributable to the prop­erty, was within the require­ments of ORS 308.550 (Valuing property of company operating both within and without state). Trailer Train Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 170 (1973)

Tax appor­tion­ment formula used by Depart­ment of Revenue which allocated unit value to state on basis of time spent in air by aircraft that flew over but did not land in state did not violate "reasonable method" require­ment of this sec­tion. Alaska Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 307 Or 406, 769 P2d 193 (1989)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 711, 734 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

The wa­ter system in a planned unit develop­ment was properly assessed by the Depart­ment of Revenue as having value for which taxes should have been assessed. Brooks Resources v. Dept. of Rev., 276 Or 1177, 538 P2d 312 (1976)

In valuing a railroad, the weight to be given each approach customarily used (cost, stock and debt, and income) and the varia­tion among appraisers in the minutiae of their methods, if in dispute, are left to the court to consider. Burlington Northern v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 19 (1979), as modified by 291 Or 729, 635 P2d 347

Land infested with tansy ragwort and therefore not used to obtain a profit was properly disqualified for special assess­ment at true cash value for farm use. Shepherd v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 122 (1979)

While it is allowable to use only one approach in valuing prop­erty, whether in any given assess­ment one approach should be used exclusive of the others or is preferable to an­oth­er or to combina­tion of approaches is ques­tion of fact to be determined by the court. Pacific Power and Light Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 529, 596 P2d 912 (1979)

Central assess­ment statutes create excep­tion to public prop­erty tax exemp­tion out­lined in ORS 307.090 (Property of the state, counties and other municipal corporations). Pacificorp Power Marketing v. Dept. of Revenue, 340 Or 204, 131 P3d 725 (2006)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 714 (1990)

Chapter 308

Notes of Decisions

Programs administered by Depart­ment of Revenue that allow preferential assess­ment for farm and forestland are not "programs affecting land use" and are not subject to require­ment of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities). Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Applica­tion of Article XI, sec­tion 11b of Oregon Constitu­tion to this chapter, (1990) Vol 46, p 388

Law Review Cita­tions

5 EL 516 (1975)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 308—Assessment of Property for Taxation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors308.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 308, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­308ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information