2007 ORS 314.670¹
Additional methods to determine extent of business activity in this state
  • rules

(1) If the application of the allocation and apportionment provisions of ORS 314.605 (Short title) to 314.675 (Apportionment of net loss) do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for and the Department of Revenue may permit, or the department may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer’s business activity:

(a) Separate accounting;

(b) The exclusion of any one or more of the factors;

(c) The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer’s business activity in this state; or

(d) The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer’s income.

(2) The department may adopt rules to promote uniformity and consistency with other states in the application of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act. [1965 c.152 §19; 1984 c.1 §17; 1995 c.79 §157; 1999 c.143 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Where Oregon lime opera­tion was separate and autonomous from midwestern headquarters of plaintiff's manufacturing complex and had net loss for tax purposes during years in ques­tion, refund of taxes improperly assessed through use of alloca­tion and appor­tion­ment formula of this sec­tion was re­quired. Ash Grove Ce­ment Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 7 OTR 6 (1977)

This sec­tion is applicable to remedy unconstitu­tional results, or to provide alternatives to statutory alloca­tion and appor­tion­ment in unusual cases where statutory formula does not fairly represent business ac­tivity of taxpayer. Twentieth Century-Fox Film v. Dept. of Rev., 299 Or 220, 700 P2d 1035 (1985)

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.