314.675
Apportionment of net loss; net loss deduction; limitations. If the operations of a taxpayer
subject to ORS 314.280 or 314.615 result in a net loss, that net loss shall be
apportioned in the same manner as the net income so as fairly and accurately to
reflect the net loss of the business done within this state. The net loss
applicable to Oregon income pursuant to this section shall then become the net
loss deduction for subsequent years which may be deducted from apportioned net
income in the same manner as set forth in the Personal Income Tax Act of 1969,
and in ORS chapters 317 and 318. The limitations as to the amount deductible
and the time limitations in those statutes shall apply to the apportioned net
loss deduction computed pursuant to this section. [1965 c.152 §23; 1969 c.493 §89;
1983 c.162 §55]
314.680 [1989 c.792 §3; 1995 c.79 §159;
2014 c.103 §§1,3; repealed by 2021 c.74 §4]
314.682 [1989 c.792 §2; 1995 c.79 §160;
repealed by 2021 c.74 §4]
314.684 [1989 c.792 §4; 2014 c.103 §§2,4;
repealed by 2021 c.74 §4]
314.686 [1989 c.792 §5; 1995 c.79 §161;
repealed by 2021 c.74 §4]
314.688 [1989 c.792 §6; 1995 c.79 §162;
repealed by 2021 c.74 §4]
314.690 [1989 c.792 §7; repealed by 2021
c.74 §4]
(Application)
Notes of Decisions
Lee v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 Or. Tax 460 (Or. T.C. 1998).
· cites it 7× “Taxpayers contend that the partnership is not a unitary business and, even if it is, its Oregon losses must be separately accounted for under ORS 314.675. 1 The parties have stipulated to the facts and submitted this matter on cross motions for summary judgment.”
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“The relevant statutes for shareholders in 33 The conclusion the court draws as to UDITPA being a source of authority for combined reporting also answers the assertion by the department that some- how ORS 314.675 serves as support for finding in UDITPA a source of authority for…”
The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Dep't of Rev., 14 Or. Tax 384 (Or. T.C. 1998).
“605 to ORS 314.675. The rule allows only income, rather than gross receipts, from the sale of intangibles to be included in the sales factor.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Penn Indep. Corp., 15 Or. Tax 68 (Or. T.C. 1999).
“605 to ORS 314.675. Due to the nature of their businesses, financial organizations and public utilities are excluded from formula apportionment.”
At&T v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 202 (Or. T.C. 2000).
“605 to ORS 314.675 (UDITPA). Here, taxpayer is a public utility taxable under ORS 314.”
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 996 P.2d 500 (Or. 2000).
“605 to ORS 314.675. As adopted by Oregon, UDITPA requires apportionment using a formula that is designed to reflect the relative levels of business activity in each state.”
ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2024).
· cites it 3× “620(1) (1989); ORS 314.675 (1989). ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5431 Page 33 of 41 different meaning is clearly required or the term is specifically defined in this chapter.”
Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “605 through ORS 314.675 (the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act, or “UDITPA”) apply.”
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.