314.280
Allocation of income of financial institution or public utility from business
within and without state; rules; alternative apportionment for electing
utilities or telecommunications taxpayers. (1) If a taxpayer has income from business activity
as a financial institution or as a public utility (as defined respectively in
ORS 314.610 (4) and (6)) which is taxable both within and without this state
(as defined in ORS 314.610 (8) and 314.615), the determination of net income
shall be based upon the business activity within the state, and the Department
of Revenue shall have power to permit or require either the segregated method
of reporting or the apportionment method of reporting, under rules and
regulations adopted by the department, so as fairly and accurately to reflect
the net income of the business done within the state.
(2) The
provisions of subsection (1) of this section dealing with the apportionment of
income earned from sources both within and without the State of Oregon are
designed to allocate to the State of Oregon on a fair and equitable basis a
proportion of such income earned from sources both within and without the
state. Any taxpayer may submit an alternative basis of apportionment with
respect to the income of the taxpayer and explain that basis in full in the
return of the taxpayer. If approved by the department that method will be
accepted as the basis of allocation.
(3)(a)
Apportionment rules adopted by the department under this section must apply the
weightings used in ORS 314.650 to comparable factors used to apportion income
from business activity of taxpayers subject to this section.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a taxpayer primarily engaged
in utilities or telecommunications may elect to have income from business
activity apportioned by applying the weightings used in ORS 314.650 (1999
Edition) to comparable factors used to apportion such income.
(c) The election
shall be made in the time and manner prescribed by the department by rule. The
election shall continue in force and effect for the tax year for which the
election is made and for each subsequent tax year until the year in which the
taxpayer revokes the election.
(d) An electing
taxpayer may revoke the taxpayer’s election by filing a revocation of election
in the time and manner prescribed by the department. The revocation shall apply
to the tax year following the year in which the election is made and to each
subsequent tax year.
(e) As used in
this subsection:
(A) “Telecommunications”
means business operations that conduct, maintain or provide for the
transmission of voice data and text between network termination points and
telecommunications reselling. Transmission facilities may be based on one
technology or a combination of technologies.
(B) “Utilities”
means business operations that provide electric power, natural gas, steam
supply, water supply or sewage removal through a permanent infrastructure of
lines, mains and pipes. [1957 c.632 §4 (enacted in lieu of 316.205 and
317.180); 1963 c.319 §1; 1965 c.152 §22; 2001 c.933 §1; 2009 c.403 §5]
314.285 [1957 c.632 §5 (enacted in lieu of
316.210 and 317.185); repealed by 1987 c.293 §56]
Notes of Decisions
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 P.3d 85 (Or. 2004).
· cites it 29× “1 The primary question before us is whether, during the tax years at issue, the Department of Revenue (department) had authority to require taxpayer to depart from the rule prescribing the standard apportionment formula for financial organizations governed under ORS 314.280, 2…”
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
· cites it 18× “The court in Zale-Salem in particular noted that its reliance upon the decision in Edison Stores was appropriate given the fact that Oregon had, in ORS 314.280, a statute virtually identical to that upon which the California court had relied in Edison Stores.”
Stonebridge Life Ins. v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 423 (Or. T.C. 2006).
· cites it 6× “670 and ORS 314.280, which allow the department to use methods of apportioning income alternative to those otherwise provided for by statute.”
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 375 (Or. T.C. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Subparagraph (3) defines “property” as “real and tangible personal property used in the business.” It appears that taxpayer reported its unitary income and apportioned it in accordance with those rules.”
A. C. Dutton Lumber Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 365 P.2d 867 (Or. 1961).
· cites it 6× “This part of the regulation reflects the provision of subsection (2) of ORS 314.280, supra, reading: “* * * Any taxpayer may submit an alterna *529 tive basis of apportionment with respect to Ms own income and explain that basis in full in his return.”
Crocker Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 838 P.2d 552 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 5× “Taxpayers engaged in activities as a financial organization * * * shall report their income as provided in ORS 314.280 * * (Emphasis added.) ORS 314.”
Cal-Roof Wholesale, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 410 P.2d 233 (Or. 1966).
· cites it 5× “, is that under the provisions of ORS 314.280 (the apportionment statute pertaining to corporate excise tax, corporate income tax, and personal income tax), in determining the net income on which it must pay tax to Oregon, it may deduct the amount attributable to its Washington…”
Powerex Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 346 P.3d 476 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1 ORS 314.280 governs the apportionment of income earned by public utilities and financial institutions.”
US Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 13 Or. Tax 84 (Or. T.C. 1994).
· cites it 7× “That act expressly excludes financial organizations and public utilities from its provisions, and directs that the income of financial organizations is to be reported as provided in ORS 314.280 and 314.675. ORS 314.615. ORS 314.”
Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018).
· cites it 2× “, 19 OTR 266 (2007), which held that the department was required to adopt rules under ORS 314.280 (governing income apportionment for financial organiza- tions and certain other businesses).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(1) — 19 cases
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 375 (Or. T.C. 2001).
“Subparagraph (3) defines “property” as “real and tangible personal property used in the business.” It appears that taxpayer reported its unitary income and apportioned it in accordance with those rules.”
Christensen II v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 155 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“, 19 OTR 266 (2007), which held that the department was required to adopt rules under ORS 314.280 (governing income apportionment for financial organiza- tions and certain other businesses).”
U.S. Bancorp v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 P.3d 85 (Or. 2004).
“1 The primary question before us is whether, during the tax years at issue, the Department of Revenue (department) had authority to require taxpayer to depart from the rule prescribing the standard apportionment formula for financial organizations governed under ORS 314.280, 2…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(2) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(2)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(2)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(2)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.280(3)(a) — 1 case
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.