2017 ORS 314.635¹
Allocation to this state of capital gains and losses

(1) Capital gains and losses from sales of real property located in this state are allocable to this state.

(2) Capital gains and losses from sales of tangible personal property are allocable to this state if (a) the property had a situs in this state at the time of the sale, or (b) the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state and the taxpayer is not taxable in the state in which the property had a situs.

(3) Except in the case of the sale of a partnership interest, capital gains and losses from sales of intangible personal property are allocable to this state if the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state.

(4) Gain or loss from the sale of a partnership interest is allocable to this state in the ratio of the original cost of partnership tangible property in the state to the original cost of partnership tangible property everywhere, determined at the time of the sale. In the event that more than 50 percent of the value of a partnership’s assets consists of intangibles, gain or loss from the sale of the partnership interest shall be allocated to this state in accordance with the sales factor of the partnership for its first full tax year immediately preceding its tax year during which the partnership interest was sold. [1965 c.152 §7; 1989 c.625 §64]

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/­ors314.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 314, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano314.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.