2017 ORS 314.669¹
Legislative findings
  • purposes

(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:

(a) The State of Oregon has a compelling interest in promoting and stimulating economic development within this state to better provide for the welfare of its residents, in encouraging businesses to make significant capital investments within this state and in creating certainty in the apportionment of income for purposes of income and corporate excise taxation that achieves these ends;

(b) Use of the single sales factor method to apportion income promotes an economic development climate that encourages businesses to locate and remain within this state, encourages existing Oregon businesses to expand their operations in Oregon and creates incentives for businesses to make significant capital investments within this state;

(c) Qualifying investments will create significant, long-term economic benefits and serve as the catalyst for additional economic expansion within the State of Oregon;

(d) It is in the interest of the State of Oregon to authorize the Governor, in consultation with the Director of the Oregon Business Development Department and the Director of the Department of Revenue, to enter into qualifying investment contracts for purposes of stimulating economic development through qualifying investments;

(e) In consideration for making qualifying investments, taxpayers should be entitled to rely on the continued application of the single sales factor method to apportion their income for tax purposes;

(f) Factors to be considered in determining the duration of the term of a qualifying investment contract should include, without limitation, the number of new employees to be added to the Oregon workforce of the taxpayer when the qualifying investment is complete, the duration and compensation of the new jobs created, other economic development incentives received by the company and the extent to which the qualifying investment will create employment opportunities in rural Oregon; and

(g) The State of Oregon has a compelling interest in contractually guaranteeing to taxpayers making qualifying investments that such taxpayers may rely on the single sales factor method as the applicable method to determine the portion of apportionable income subject to income or corporate excise tax in the State of Oregon.

(2) The purposes of ORS 314.668 (Definitions) to 314.673 (Rules) are:

(a) To promote and stimulate economic development by creating an incentive for qualifying investments;

(b) To authorize the Governor, in consultation with the Director of the Oregon Business Development Department and the Director of the Department of Revenue, to enter into qualifying investment contracts on behalf of this state; and

(c) To ratify any qualifying investment contracts entered into on or after December 14, 2012.

(3) The intent of the Legislative Assembly is for ORS 314.668 (Definitions) to 314.673 (Rules) to establish a contractually binding obligation under which taxpayers that execute qualifying investment contracts with the State of Oregon may rely on the single sales factor method of apportionment to apportion their apportionable income for each tax year of the taxpayer that ends during the term of the qualifying investment contract. [2012 s.s. c.1 §4; 2017 c.43 §7]

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.