Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.620 (2026)
When taxpayer is considered taxable in another state
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
314.620 When taxpayer is considered taxable in another state. For purposes of allocation and apportionment of income under ORS 314.280 and 314.605 to 314.675, a taxpayer is taxable in another state if:
(1) In that state the taxpayer is subject to a net income tax, a franchise tax measured by net income, a franchise tax for the privilege of doing business, or a corporate stock tax; or
(2) That state has jurisdiction to subject the taxpayer to a net income tax regardless of whether, in fact, the state does or does not. [1965 c.152 §4]
(Allocation of Nonapportionable Income)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 546 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1976).
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 546 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1976). “Having reached this conclusion, we find it unneces *401 sary to consider plaintiff’s contention that because it pays a corporate license and franchise tax to the state of Washington it is entitled to apportion its income under ORS 314.”
Comcast Corp. II v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265), 24 Or. Tax 250 (Or. T.C. 2020). “684(4)) provided: “(1) In general, if a taxpayer broadcasts to subscribers or to an audi- ence that is located both within and without this state and the broadcaster is taxable in another state under the provisions of ORS 314.620, then the interstate broadcaster is required to…”
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 6 Or. Tax 82 (Or. T.C. 1975). “This allocation is made under the provisions for allocation and apportionment of income in the Uniform Act but an exception thereto is provided by ORS 314.620, if the taxpayer is taxed in another state or is potentially taxable in another state (in this instance, Washington),…”
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 210 (Or. T.C. 1982). “620-(B) (a rule promulgated in connection with the pertinent UDITPA statute found in the 1971 Replacement Part of ORS chapter 314) provides: “(1) A taxpayer is ‘subject to’ one of the taxes specified in ORS 314.620(1) only if it carries on business activities in another state…”
Equitable Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 5 Or. Tax 661 (Or. T.C. 1974). “280, requires that the rules and regulations adopted by the department “fairly and accurately” reflect the net income of the business done within the state and that the State of Oregon tax on a “fair and equitable basis” a proportion of such income earned from sources both…”
Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 4 Or. Tax 552 (Or. T.C. 1971). “ORS 314.620 of the act specifies when a taxpayer is considered taxable in another state.”
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024). “Under UDITPA, and specifically ORS 314.620 and the “throwback rule” in ORS 314.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.620(1) — 4 cases
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 546 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1976). “Having reached this conclusion, we find it unneces *401 sary to consider plaintiff’s contention that because it pays a corporate license and franchise tax to the state of Washington it is entitled to apportion its income under ORS 314.”
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 6 Or. Tax 82 (Or. T.C. 1975). “This allocation is made under the provisions for allocation and apportionment of income in the Uniform Act but an exception thereto is provided by ORS 314.620, if the taxpayer is taxed in another state or is potentially taxable in another state (in this instance, Washington),…”
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 210 (Or. T.C. 1982). “620-(B) (a rule promulgated in connection with the pertinent UDITPA statute found in the 1971 Replacement Part of ORS chapter 314) provides: “(1) A taxpayer is ‘subject to’ one of the taxes specified in ORS 314.620(1) only if it carries on business activities in another state…”
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024). “Under UDITPA, and specifically ORS 314.620 and the “throwback rule” in ORS 314.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.620(2) — 4 cases
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 546 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1976). “Having reached this conclusion, we find it unneces *401 sary to consider plaintiff’s contention that because it pays a corporate license and franchise tax to the state of Washington it is entitled to apportion its income under ORS 314.”
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 6 Or. Tax 82 (Or. T.C. 1975). “This allocation is made under the provisions for allocation and apportionment of income in the Uniform Act but an exception thereto is provided by ORS 314.620, if the taxpayer is taxed in another state or is potentially taxable in another state (in this instance, Washington),…”
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 9 Or. Tax 210 (Or. T.C. 1982). “620-(B) (a rule promulgated in connection with the pertinent UDITPA statute found in the 1971 Replacement Part of ORS chapter 314) provides: “(1) A taxpayer is ‘subject to’ one of the taxes specified in ORS 314.620(1) only if it carries on business activities in another state…”
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024). “Under UDITPA, and specifically ORS 314.620 and the “throwback rule” in ORS 314.”
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.