unitary business principle in Oregon

14 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen scotus · 1992 · cited in 12 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1993–2021 2 sentences 2020That is the unitary business principle.” Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, 504 US 768, 778 , 112 S Ct 2251 , 119 L Ed 2d 533 (1992) (emphases added); see Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 354 Or 531, 536-37 , 316 P3d 276 (2013) (explaining concepts of allocation and apportionment). 2020That is the unitary business principle.” Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, 504 US 768, 778 , 112 S Ct 2251 , 119 L Ed 2d 533 (1992) (emphases added); see Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 354 Or 531, 536-37 , 316 P3d 276 (2013) (explaining concepts of allocation and apportionment).	6	12
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vt.green scotus · 1980 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1993–2000 2 sentences 2000Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 US 450 , 79 S Ct 357 , 3 L Ed 2d 421 (1959). “* * * [T]he linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 US 425, 439 , 100 S Ct 1223 , 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980). 2000Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 US 450 , 79 S Ct 357 , 3 L Ed 2d 421 (1959). “* * * [T]he linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 US 425, 439 , 100 S Ct 1223 , 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980).	1	3
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenuegreen or · 2013 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020That is the unitary business principle.” Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, 504 US 768, 778 , 112 S Ct 2251 , 119 L Ed 2d 533 (1992) (emphases added); see Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 354 Or 531, 536-37 , 316 P3d 276 (2013) (explaining concepts of allocation and apportionment). 2020That is the unitary business principle.” Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, 504 US 768, 778 , 112 S Ct 2251 , 119 L Ed 2d 533 (1992) (emphases added); see Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 354 Or 531, 536-37 , 316 P3d 276 (2013) (explaining concepts of allocation and apportionment).	1	1
Fisher Broadcasting Co. v. Dept. of Rev.green ortc · 2015 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016(Fisher Broadcasting), 22 OTR 69, 75 (2015).	1	1
Pennzoil Co. v. Department of Revenuegreen ortc · 2000 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Pennzoil Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 101, 107 (2000) aff'd, Pennzoil, 332 Or 542 , (quoting Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 US 159, 166 , 103 S Ct 2933 , 77 L Ed 2d 545 (1983)).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Taylor v. Secor green scotus · 1876 2 sentences 2023Derived from the same case law that approved unit valuation for property tax purposes, the unitary business principle allows a state to determine taxable income as an apportioned share of the entire net income if the business is characterized by “centralized management,” “economies of scale,” and “functional integration.” See generally Hellerstein & Hellerstein, 1 State Taxation at ¶ 8.05 (“The unit rule is the progenitor of the contemporary ‘unitary business principle’ that underlies the use of formulary apportionment [for state income tax purposes].”) (citing State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 US 2023Derived from the same case law that approved unit valuation for property tax purposes, the unitary business principle allows a state to determine taxable income as an apportioned share of the entire net income if the business is characterized by “centralized management,” “economies of scale,” and “functional integration.” See generally Hellerstein & Hellerstein, 1 State Taxation at ¶ 8.05 (“The unit rule is the progenitor of the contemporary ‘unitary business principle’ that underlies the use of formulary apportionment [for state income tax purposes].”) (citing State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 US	1	2023–2023
Pennzoil Co. v. Department of Revenue green or · 2001 2 sentences 2016Pennzoil Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 101, 107 (2000) aff'd, Pennzoil, 332 Or 542 , (quoting Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 US 159, 166 , 103 S Ct 2933 , 77 L Ed 2d 545 (1983)). 2016Id. at 549 .	1	2016–2016
Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2016Pennzoil Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 101, 107 (2000) aff'd, Pennzoil, 332 Or 542 , (quoting Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 US 159, 166 , 103 S Ct 2933 , 77 L Ed 2d 545 (1983)). 2016Pennzoil Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 101, 107 (2000) aff'd, Pennzoil, 332 Or 542 , (quoting Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 US 159, 166 , 103 S Ct 2933 , 77 L Ed 2d 545 (1983)).	1	2016–2016
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue green scotus · 2008 1 sentence 2014In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Meadwestvaco, 553 US at 29-30 , that: “References to ‘operational function’ in Container Corp. and Allied-Signal were not intended to modify the unitary business principle by adding a new ground for apportionment. * * * The conclusion that the asset served an operational function was merely instrumental to the constitutionally relevant conclusion that the asset was a unitary part of the business being conducted in the taxing State rather than a discrete asset to which the State had no claim.	1	2014–2014
Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota green scotus · 1959 2 sentences 2000Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 US 450 , 79 S Ct 357 , 3 L Ed 2d 421 (1959). “* * * [T]he linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 US 425, 439 , 100 S Ct 1223 , 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980). 2000Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 US 450 , 79 S Ct 357 , 3 L Ed 2d 421 (1959). “* * * [T]he linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 US 425, 439 , 100 S Ct 1223 , 63 L Ed 2d 510 (1980).	1	2000–2000
Exxon Corp. v. Department of Revenue of Wis. green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2000It is the “rational relationship between income attributable to the state and the interstate values of the enterprise.” Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Rev., 447 US 207, 219-20 , 100 S Ct 2109 , 65 L Ed 2d 66 (1980). 2000It is the “rational relationship between income attributable to the state and the interstate values of the enterprise.” Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Rev., 447 US 207, 219-20 , 100 S Ct 2109 , 65 L Ed 2d 66 (1980).	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.610 (11) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.605 (8) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.625 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.650 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.615 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.010 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.070 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.710 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OR 14 (1993–2023) CA 10 (1970–2018) NJ 9 (1983–2011) IL 8 (2000–2005) MN 7 (1984–2025) MO 7 (1983–1998) MI 6 (2005–2023) MD 6 (1984–2019) TN 5 (1994–2011) IN 4 (1999–2017) NM 4 (1993–2024) PA 3 (1995–2013) OK 2 (1994–1994) ME 2 (2007–2021) NY 2 (1986–1991) CO 2 (1983–1999) AZ 2 (2010–2013) AK 2 (1983–1998) WI 2 (1993–1994) KY 2 (1994–2009) ND 2 (1991–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check