2015 ORS 314.615¹
When allocation and apportionment of net income from business activity required

Any taxpayer having income from business activity which is taxable both within and without this state, other than activity as a financial institution or public utility or the rendering of purely personal services by an individual, shall allocate and apportion the net income of the taxpayer as provided in ORS 314.605 (Short title) to 314.675 (Apportionment of net loss). Taxpayers engaged in activities as a financial institution or public utility shall report their income as provided in ORS 314.280 (Allocation of income of financial institution or public utility from business within and without state) and 314.675 (Apportionment of net loss). [1965 c.152 §3; 2001 c.793 §6; 2001 c.933 §5; 2009 c.403 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Prescribed method of accounting under ORS 314.605 (Short title) to 314.670, Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, is appor­tion­ment method. Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 263 Or 26, 500 P2d 1041 (1972)

Party, whether taxpayer or Depart­ment of Revenue, who seeks to invoke ap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty of this sec­tion has burden of proof. Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 263 Or 26, 500 P2d 1041 (1972)

Dependent-and-contributing test is proper test for determining whether vertically integrated parent and subsidiary constitutes unitary business for purposes of taxa­tion. Coca-Cola Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 271 Or 517, 533 P2d 788 (1975)

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)

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/­ors314.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 314, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano314.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.