2015 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)

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.