2007 ORS 314.650¹
Business income apportionment

(1) All business income shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying the income by the sales factor.

(2)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the business income of a taxpayer that is in the forest products industry, that owns and manages 300,000 or more acres in this state, but less than 400,000 acres, and that processes at least 20 percent of the taxpayer’s total wood chip supply for papermaking from sawmill residue generated within this state, shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying the income by a fraction, the numerator of which is the property factor plus the payroll factor plus two times the sales factor, and the denominator of which is four.

(b) If the denominator of the property factor, payroll factor or sales factor, as determined under ORS 314.650 (Business income apportionment) to 314.665 (Determination of sales factor), is zero, then the denominator specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be reduced by the number of factors with a denominator of zero. [1965 c.152 §10; 1989 c.626 §5; 1989 c.1088 §1; 1995 c.79 §156; 2001 c.793 §1; 2003 c.739 §§1,5; 2005 c.832 §§48,49]

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion states three-factor appor­tion­ment formula by using dollar values assessed to prop­erty, sales and payroll aspects of taxpayer's business. Twentieth Century-Fox v. Dept. of Rev., 299 Or 220, 700 P2d 1035 (1985); Crocker Equip­ment Leasing, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 314 Or 122, 838 P2d 552 (1992)

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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 314—Taxes Imposed Upon or Measured by Net Income, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­314.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 314, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­314ano.­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.