2017 ORS 314.645¹
Allocation to this state of patent and copyright royalties

(1) Patent and copyright royalties are allocable to this state (a) if and to the extent that the patent or copyright is utilized by the payer in this state, or (b) if and to the extent that the patent or copyright is utilized by the payer in a state in which the taxpayer is not taxable and the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state.

(2) A patent is utilized in a state to the extent that it is employed in production, fabrication, manufacturing, or other processing in the state or to the extent that a patented product is produced in the state. If the basis of receipts from patent royalties does not permit allocation to states or if the accounting procedures do not reflect states of utilization, the patent is utilized in the state in which the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is located.

(3) A copyright is utilized in a state to the extent that printing or other publication originates in the state. If the basis of receipts from copyright royalties does not permit allocation to states or if the accounting procedures do not reflect states of utilization, the copyright is utilized in the state in which the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is located. [1965 c.152 §9]

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.