314.295
Apportionment or allocation where two or more organizations, trades or
businesses are owned or controlled by the same interests. In any case of two or more
organizations, trades or businesses (whether or not incorporated, whether or
not organized in the United States and whether or not affiliated) owned or
controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, the Department of
Revenue may distribute, apportion or allocate gross income, deductions, credits
or allowances between or among such organizations, trades or businesses, if it
determines that such distribution, apportionment or allocation is necessary in
order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of
such organizations, trades or businesses. [1957 c.632 §10 (enacted in lieu of
316.560 and 317.375); 1991 c.457 §16b]
314.296 [2009 c.402 §2; 2013 c.467 §1;
repealed by 2013 c.467 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Allison v. Department of Revenue (1990)
ortc · cites it 7×
“Defendant also claims authority for its action under ORS 314.295 (1983). That statute provides: “When the department has reason to believe that any taxpayer so conducts a trade or business as either directly or indirectly to distort its true net income and the net income…”
Moser v. Department of Revenue (1970)
ortc · cites it 7×
“It was the department’s conclusion that such sales distorted the personal income tax returns of the plaintiffs and that additional assessment of taxes was proper under ORS 314.295. Plaintiffs allege that neither ORS 314.”
Cook v. Dept. of Rev. (2018)
ortc
“As to shifting of income, the department has, but has not yet used in this case, the ability, under ORS 314.295, to test income shifting. 17 For the tax years at issue in Zale-Salem, 1959 and 1960, ORS 314.”
Apple Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024)
ortc · cites it 6×
“Does ORS 314.295 allow Defendant to recompute the “gross receipts” on the consolidated return? In a footnote in its opening brief, Defendant makes the following alternative argument: “To the extent that Apple is attempting to remove gross receipts (which they argue are…”
M&T Bank Corp. v. Dept of Rev. (2015)
ortc
“of fact based on the parties’ exhibits and reached the following conclusions: (1) M&T Real Estate Trust (MRET), as a real estate investment trust (REIT), was not a member of Plaintiffs’ affiliated group and could not, therefore, file consolidated returns during the tax years at…”
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.