Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.550

Valuing property of company operating both within and without state

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      308.550 Valuing property of company operating both within and without state. (1) When a company owns, leases, operates over or uses rail, wire, pipe or pole lines, operational routes or property within and without this state, if the department values the entire property within and without this state as a unit, it may ascertain the property subject to taxation in Oregon by the proportion which the number of miles of rail, wire, pipe or pole lines or operational routes in Oregon, controlled or used by the company, as owner, lessee, or otherwise, bears to the entire mileage of rail, wire, pipe or pole lines or operational routes controlled or used by the company, as owner, lessee, or otherwise.

      (2) If the value of any property having a situs in this state, of a company operating both within and without the state, cannot fairly be determined in the manner prescribed in subsection (1) of this section, the Department of Revenue may use any other reasonable method to determine the proper proportion of the entire property assessable for taxation in this state.

      (3) The assessed value of the property of a water transportation company apportioned or allocated to Oregon shall not reflect so much of the value of its watercraft as is fairly attributable to voyages made by such watercraft exclusively on the high seas or between inland water ports or termini and the high seas. Voyages made to Oregon ports for the sole purpose or purposes of picking up or discharging company personnel, making repairs, refitting, or taking on supplies shall not be used for allocation or apportionment purposes. [Amended by 1955 c.735 §2; 1991 c.459 §147; 1997 c.541 §207]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Comcast Corp. III v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 4909)
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comcast Corp. III v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 4909) (2016) ortc · cites it 5× “Defendant (the department) assessed taxpayer under the central assess- ment regime, found in ORS 308.550 to 308.665. This per- mitted the department to include, in the RMV of all of tax- payer’s properties, significant additional value inherent in the intangible property of…”
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue (1989) or · cites it 7× “550(2) 11 requires the Department to use a *418 “reasonable method” when it uses an apportionment method other than that prescribed by ORS 308.550(1). Alaska and PSA argue that the Department did not use a reasonable method.”
SOUTHERN PAC. TRANS. v. Dept. of Rev. (1983) or · cites it 4× “730: * * * * * * (3) `Property having situs in this state' includes all property, real and personal, of a company, owned, leased, used, operated or occupied by it and situated wholly within the state, and, as determined under ORS 308.550, 308.555 and 308.640, such proportion of…”
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Department of Revenue (1987) or · cites it 3× “See ORS 308.550(2), 308.555. For the years 1976-79, the Department included Cottonbelt in the unit for assessing Southern Pacific’s property.”
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1979) ortc · cites it 3× “) These adjustments resulted in the sum of $2,196,408,000 which defendant’s Green submitted as the true cash value of the subject property as of January 1, 1976, and the universe from which allocation must he made to Oregon pursuant to ORS 308.550(1) and (2). Mr. Green’s system…”
Level 3 Communications LLC III v. Dept. of Rev. (2019) ortc ““(10) ‘Property having situs in this state’ means all property, real and personal, of a company, owned, leased, used, operated or occupied by it and situated wholly within this state, and, as determined under ORS 308.550 and 308.640, the proportion of the movable, transitory or…”
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 3× “Second, the term “unit of property,” as used in Measure 50, may apply to centrally or locally assessed prop- erty, but in either case it refers only to property in Oregon, which the state or its localities have jurisdiction to assess and tax under the United States Constitution.”
United Telephone Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989) or “ORS 308.550(2); 308.555. The allocation is based on a formula established by the Western States Association of Tax Administrators.”
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Department of Revenue (1982) ortc · cites it 3× “oad operation, if a train collision or high water or rail failure in another state would adversely affect the use of the Oregon track facilities in the regular course of business, all the directly affected area should be deemed a part of the Oregon property unit for the initial,…”
Public Utility District No. 1 v. Department of Revenue (2005) ortc “See ORS 308.550; ORS 308.565; OAR 150-308.550(2)-(B) (relating to railroad car companies); OAR 308.”
PP & L v. Dept. of Rev. (1989) or “515(1)(a); 308.540. Because Pacific's electricity generation and distribution is integrated throughout its six-state service area, Pacific's entire system is first valued as a unit, a portion of which then is allocated to Oregon.”
Dept. of Rev. v. River's Edge Investments LLC (2014) ortc “See ORS 308.550 (relating to the assessment of so-called centrally assessed properties).”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.550(1) — 6 cases
SOUTHERN PAC. TRANS. v. Dept. of Rev. (1983) or “730: * * * * * * (3) `Property having situs in this state' includes all property, real and personal, of a company, owned, leased, used, operated or occupied by it and situated wholly within the state, and, as determined under ORS 308.550, 308.555 and 308.640, such proportion of…”
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue (1989) or “550(2) 11 requires the Department to use a *418 “reasonable method” when it uses an apportionment method other than that prescribed by ORS 308.550(1). Alaska and PSA argue that the Department did not use a reasonable method.”
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1979) ortc “) These adjustments resulted in the sum of $2,196,408,000 which defendant’s Green submitted as the true cash value of the subject property as of January 1, 1976, and the universe from which allocation must he made to Oregon pursuant to ORS 308.550(1) and (2). Mr. Green’s system…”
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC I v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “Second, the term “unit of property,” as used in Measure 50, may apply to centrally or locally assessed prop- erty, but in either case it refers only to property in Oregon, which the state or its localities have jurisdiction to assess and tax under the United States Constitution.”
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Department of Revenue (1983) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.550(2) — 9 cases
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue (1989) or “550(2) 11 requires the Department to use a *418 “reasonable method” when it uses an apportionment method other than that prescribed by ORS 308.550(1). Alaska and PSA argue that the Department did not use a reasonable method.”
SOUTHERN PAC. TRANS. v. Dept. of Rev. (1983) or “730: * * * * * * (3) `Property having situs in this state' includes all property, real and personal, of a company, owned, leased, used, operated or occupied by it and situated wholly within the state, and, as determined under ORS 308.550, 308.555 and 308.640, such proportion of…”
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Department of Revenue (1987) or “See ORS 308.550(2), 308.555. For the years 1976-79, the Department included Cottonbelt in the unit for assessing Southern Pacific’s property.”
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1979) ortc “) These adjustments resulted in the sum of $2,196,408,000 which defendant’s Green submitted as the true cash value of the subject property as of January 1, 1976, and the universe from which allocation must he made to Oregon pursuant to ORS 308.550(1) and (2). Mr. Green’s system…”
United Telephone Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989) or “ORS 308.550(2); 308.555. The allocation is based on a formula established by the Western States Association of Tax Administrators.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.550(l) — 1 case
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Department of Revenue (1987) or “See ORS 308.550(2), 308.555. For the years 1976-79, the Department included Cottonbelt in the unit for assessing Southern Pacific’s property.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.