Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665

Determination of sales factor; use of market sourcing; inclusions and exclusions; definitions

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

      314.665 Determination of sales factor; use of market sourcing; inclusions and exclusions; definitions. (1) As used in ORS 314.650, the sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.

      (2) Sales of tangible personal property are in this state if:

      (a) The property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser, other than the United States Government, within this state regardless of the f.o.b. point or other conditions of the sale; or

      (b) The property is shipped from an office, store, warehouse, factory, or other place of storage in this state and the purchaser is the United States Government or the taxpayer is not taxable in the state of the purchaser. For purposes of this paragraph:

      (A) The sale of goods shipped from a public warehouse is not considered to take place in this state if:

      (i) The taxpayer’s only activity in Oregon is the storage of the goods in the public warehouse prior to shipment; or

      (ii) The taxpayer’s only activities in Oregon are the storage of the goods in the public warehouse prior to shipment and the presence of employees within this state solely for purposes of soliciting sales of the taxpayer’s products; and

      (B) “Taxpayer” means a taxpayer as defined in section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code, an affiliate of the person storing goods in a public warehouse or a person that is related under section 267 of the Internal Revenue Code to the person storing goods in a public warehouse.

      (3) Subsection (2)(b) of this section does not apply to sales of tangible personal property if:

      (a) The sales are included in the numerator of a formula used to apportion income to another state of the United States, a foreign country or the District of Columbia; and

      (b) The other state, a foreign country or the District of Columbia has imposed a tax on or measured by the apportioned income.

      (4) Sales, other than sales of tangible personal property, are in this state if the taxpayer’s market for sales is in this state, as determined under ORS 314.666.

      (5) Where the sales apportionment factor is determined by administrative rule pursuant to ORS 317.660 or other law, the Department of Revenue shall adopt rules that are consistent with the determination of the sales factor under this section.

      (6) The department may determine that a warehouse that meets the definition of “public warehouse” under this section may not be treated as a public warehouse if the warehouse is being used primarily for tax avoidance purposes or if transactions related to the use of the warehouse are primarily for tax avoidance purposes.

      (7) As used in this section, “public warehouse”:

      (a) Means a warehouse owned or operated by a person that does not own the goods stored in the warehouse; and

      (b) Does not include a warehouse that is owned by a person that is related to the person that owns goods that are stored in the warehouse, as determined under section 267 of the Internal Revenue Code, or an affiliate of the person that owns goods that are stored in the warehouse. [1965 c.152 §§16,17,18; 1993 c.813 §4; 1995 c.176 §1; 1999 c.143 §8; 2001 c.793 §5; 2001 c.933 §4; 2005 c.832 §3; 2017 c.43 §5; 2017 c.549 §3; 2017 c.622 §3; 2021 c.74 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2015) or · cites it 45× “ORS 314.665 is modeled on a uniform law that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed in 1957 and that Oregon adopted in 1965.”
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2013) or · cites it 38× “610(1)-(A)(2) (“‘Apportionment’ refers to the division of business income between states by the use of a formula containing apportionment factors.”
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 32× “650 and ORS 314.665 was not the only apportionment formula allowed or required under Oregon 384 Oracle Corp.”
At&T Corp. & Includible Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2015) or · cites it 28× “UDITPA section 15 and ORS 314.665(1), which are identical, specifically state: “The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer…”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc · cites it 30× “department in respect of the 1999 year barred by the provisions of Oregon law regarding stat- utes of limitation, except to the extent of the refund claimed by taxpayer? (2) In any event, are the gross or net receipts recognized by taxpayer in respect of the disposition of…”
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries I v. Dept. of Rev. (2020) ortc · cites it 33× “PARTIES’ POSITIONS Taxpayer seeks to include the unsubtracted 20 per- cent of the Subpart F Income and the unsubtracted 20 per- cent of the Dividends in its Oregon sales factor, contending that these amounts are “sales” under ORS 314.665. On its returns, taxpayer included the…”
Comcast Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue (2018) or · cites it 3× “Taxpayer asked the court to determine **542 that only its receipts from "broadcasting" activity should be apportioned under *709 ORS 314.”
Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265) (2016) ortc · cites it 6× “Further, the court ruled that no statutory provision in the Broadcaster Statutes makes a cross- reference to ORS 314.665 as a default rule to be applied to the extent the Broadcaster Statutes do not apply, therefore the apportionment per the Broadcaster Statutes was appropriate.”
Alfieri v. Solomon (2015) or “, 357 Or 40, 46-47 , 346 P3d 476 (2015) (use of passive voice in ORS 314.665(2)(a) indicates that application of statute does not depend on identity of actor).”
Comcast Corp. II v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265) (2020) ortc · cites it 3× “”); ORS 314.665(1) (“[T]he sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.”
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Department of Revenue (1985) or “” ORS 314.665 “(1) The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.”
Health Net Life Ins. Co. v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS When interpreting a federal statute, the overall task of the court is to “identify and carry out the intent of 8 The 2017 edition of the ORS does not reprint the version of the sales factor statute (ORS 314.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(1) — 14 cases
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2013) or “610(1)-(A)(2) (“‘Apportionment’ refers to the division of business income between states by the use of a formula containing apportionment factors.”
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “ORS 314.665 is modeled on a uniform law that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed in 1957 and that Oregon adopted in 1965.”
Comcast Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Dep't of Revenue (2018) or “Taxpayer asked the court to determine **542 that only its receipts from "broadcasting" activity should be apportioned under *709 ORS 314.”
At&T Corp. & Includible Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “UDITPA section 15 and ORS 314.665(1), which are identical, specifically state: “The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer…”
Comcast Corp. II v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265) (2020) ortc “”); ORS 314.665(1) (“[T]he sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(2) — 8 cases
At&T Corp. & Includible Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “UDITPA section 15 and ORS 314.665(1), which are identical, specifically state: “The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer…”
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “ORS 314.665 is modeled on a uniform law that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed in 1957 and that Oregon adopted in 1965.”
Northwest Textbook Depository Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989) ortc
Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1975) ortc
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Department of Revenue (1979) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(2)(a) — 7 cases
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “ORS 314.665 is modeled on a uniform law that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed in 1957 and that Oregon adopted in 1965.”
Alfieri v. Solomon (2015) or “, 357 Or 40, 46-47 , 346 P3d 476 (2015) (use of passive voice in ORS 314.665(2)(a) indicates that application of statute does not depend on identity of actor).”
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “650 and ORS 314.665 was not the only apportionment formula allowed or required under Oregon 384 Oracle Corp.”
Northwest Textbook Depository Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989) ortc
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(2)(b) — 3 cases
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “ORS 314.665 is modeled on a uniform law that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed in 1957 and that Oregon adopted in 1965.”
Northwest Textbook Depository Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989) ortc
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
Gilmore Steel Corp. v. Department of Revenue (1982) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(3) — 4 cases
Comcast Corp. II v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265) (2020) ortc “”); ORS 314.665(1) (“[T]he sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.”
Fisher Broadcasting, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1994) ortc
Northwest Textbook Depository Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989) ortc
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(4) — 22 cases
At&T Corp. & Includible Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “UDITPA section 15 and ORS 314.665(1), which are identical, specifically state: “The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer…”
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “650 and ORS 314.665 was not the only apportionment formula allowed or required under Oregon 384 Oracle Corp.”
Powerex Corp. v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “ORS 314.665 is modeled on a uniform law that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed in 1957 and that Oregon adopted in 1965.”
Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (TC 5265) (2016) ortc “Further, the court ruled that no statutory provision in the Broadcaster Statutes makes a cross- reference to ORS 314.665 as a default rule to be applied to the extent the Broadcaster Statutes do not apply, therefore the apportionment per the Broadcaster Statutes was appropriate.”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc “department in respect of the 1999 year barred by the provisions of Oregon law regarding stat- utes of limitation, except to the extent of the refund claimed by taxpayer? (2) In any event, are the gross or net receipts recognized by taxpayer in respect of the disposition of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(6) — 14 cases
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “650 and ORS 314.665 was not the only apportionment formula allowed or required under Oregon 384 Oracle Corp.”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc “department in respect of the 1999 year barred by the provisions of Oregon law regarding stat- utes of limitation, except to the extent of the refund claimed by taxpayer? (2) In any event, are the gross or net receipts recognized by taxpayer in respect of the disposition of…”
At&T Corp. & Includible Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2015) or “UDITPA section 15 and ORS 314.665(1), which are identical, specifically state: “The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer…”
Health Net Life Ins. Co. v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “ANALYSIS When interpreting a federal statute, the overall task of the court is to “identify and carry out the intent of 8 The 2017 edition of the ORS does not reprint the version of the sales factor statute (ORS 314.”
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY v. Department of Revenue (2000) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(6)(a) — 12 cases
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2013) or “610(1)-(A)(2) (“‘Apportionment’ refers to the division of business income between states by the use of a formula containing apportionment factors.”
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “650 and ORS 314.665 was not the only apportionment formula allowed or required under Oregon 384 Oracle Corp.”
Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries I v. Dept. of Rev. (2020) ortc “PARTIES’ POSITIONS Taxpayer seeks to include the unsubtracted 20 per- cent of the Subpart F Income and the unsubtracted 20 per- cent of the Dividends in its Oregon sales factor, contending that these amounts are “sales” under ORS 314.665. On its returns, taxpayer included the…”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc “department in respect of the 1999 year barred by the provisions of Oregon law regarding stat- utes of limitation, except to the extent of the refund claimed by taxpayer? (2) In any event, are the gross or net receipts recognized by taxpayer in respect of the disposition of…”
The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Department of Rev. (1998) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(6)(b) — 4 cases
Tektronix, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2013) or “610(1)-(A)(2) (“‘Apportionment’ refers to the division of business income between states by the use of a formula containing apportionment factors.”
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc “department in respect of the 1999 year barred by the provisions of Oregon law regarding stat- utes of limitation, except to the extent of the refund claimed by taxpayer? (2) In any event, are the gross or net receipts recognized by taxpayer in respect of the disposition of…”
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc
Oracle Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.665(6)(c) — 1 case
Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc “department in respect of the 1999 year barred by the provisions of Oregon law regarding stat- utes of limitation, except to the extent of the refund claimed by taxpayer? (2) In any event, are the gross or net receipts recognized by taxpayer in respect of the disposition of…”
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.