2017 ORS 314.655¹
Determination of property factor

(1) For purposes of ORS 317.391 (Small city business development exemption), the property factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the average value of the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in this state during the tax period and the denominator of which is the average value of all the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used during the tax period.

(2) Property owned by the taxpayer is valued at its original cost. Property rented by the taxpayer is valued at eight times the net annual rental rate. Net annual rental rate is the annual rental rate paid by the taxpayer less any annual rental rate received by the taxpayer from subrentals.

(3) The average value of property shall be determined by averaging the values at the beginning and ending of the tax period but the Department of Revenue may require the averaging of monthly values during the tax period if reasonably required to reflect properly the average value of the taxpayer’s property. [1965 c.152 §§11,12,13; 2001 c.793 §3; 2001 c.933 §2; 2009 c.842 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Intangible drilling and develop­ment costs (IDCs) should be included in “original cost” in es­tab­lishing prop­erty factor. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 301 Or 242, 722 P2d 727 (1986)

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.