Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.667 (2026)

Additional methods to determine extent of business activity in this state; rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      314.667 Additional methods to determine extent of business activity in this state; rules. (1) If the application of the allocation and apportionment provisions of ORS 314.605 to 314.675 do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state, the taxpayer may petition for and the Department of Revenue may permit, or the department may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer’s business activity:

      (a) Separate accounting;

      (b) The exclusion of any one or more of the factors;

      (c) The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the taxpayer’s business activity in this state; or

      (d) The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and apportionment of the taxpayer’s income.

      (2) The department may adopt rules to promote uniformity and consistency with other states in the application of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act. [Formerly 314.670]

 

(Use of Single Sales Factor Method of Apportionment by Taxpayer Executing Qualifying Investment Contract)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025).
Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025). · cites it 22× “The second part of the August 29 Order rejects Plaintiff’s argument for further factor relief under Oregon’s “safety valve” statute, ORS 314.667, concluding that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden 1 Terms used in this order have the meanings assigned in the August 29 Order.”
Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024). · cites it 21× “6 Second, Plaintiff seeks what is known informally as “factor representation” or “factor relief” under ORS 314.667, which allows a taxpayer to request an alternative allocation and apportionment method if the statutory method (1) fails to “fairly represent” the extent of the…”
Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025). · cites it 21× “7 Second, Plaintiff seeks what is known informally as “factor representation” or “factor relief” under ORS 314.667, which allows a taxpayer to request an alternative allocation and apportionment method if the statutory method (1) fails to “fairly represent” the extent of the 6…”
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5431 Page 4 of 41 • Plaintiffs present an alternative argument that the court should order their proffered apportionment methodology as relief…”
Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2019). “) Taxpayer’s remaining claim challenged the amount of its income apportioned to Oregon under ORS 314.667 and the Oregon and United States Constitutions.”
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2021). “) Finally, Defendant reached an alternative conclusion that including gross hedging receipts in Plaintiff’s sales factor would not fairly represent Plaintiff’s business activity in Oregon under ORS 314.667. (Id. at 6-7.) Defendant issued notices of assessment following its…”
Apple Inc. & U.S. Subsidiaries v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025). “(Apple Insurance) should be excluded from Plaintiffs’ Oregon sales factor denominator based on a theory of alternative apportionment under ORS 314.667. (Compl, Ex 2 at 1, 4; see Def’s Ans at 2, ¶ 9 (admitting theory).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 314.667(1) — 3 cases
Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024). “6 Second, Plaintiff seeks what is known informally as “factor representation” or “factor relief” under ORS 314.667, which allows a taxpayer to request an alternative allocation and apportionment method if the statutory method (1) fails to “fairly represent” the extent of the…”
Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025). “The second part of the August 29 Order rejects Plaintiff’s argument for further factor relief under Oregon’s “safety valve” statute, ORS 314.667, concluding that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden 1 Terms used in this order have the meanings assigned in the August 29 Order.”
Microsoft Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2025). “7 Second, Plaintiff seeks what is known informally as “factor representation” or “factor relief” under ORS 314.667, which allows a taxpayer to request an alternative allocation and apportionment method if the statutory method (1) fails to “fairly represent” the extent of the 6…”
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.