316.047
Transitional provision to prevent doubling income or deductions. If any provision of the Internal
Revenue Code or of this chapter requires that any amount be added to or
deducted from federal gross income or the net income taxable under this chapter
that previously had been added to or deducted from net income taxable under the
Oregon law in effect prior to the taxpayer’s taxable year as to which this
chapter is first effective, then, in such event, appropriate adjustment shall
be made to the net income for the year or years subject to this chapter so as
to prohibit the double taxation or the double deduction of any such amount that
previously had entered into the computation of taxable income. Differences such
as the difference in basis of property used by the taxpayer for federal and
Oregon income tax returns and on account of the treatment of operating losses
shall be resolved by application of this principle. However, the Department of
Revenue, in its audit of a return, shall not apply any adjustment under this
section which, in its opinion, if applied would result in an increase or
decrease of tax liability of less than $25. [1969 c.493 §13; 1987 c.293 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Denniston v. Dep't of Revenue, 601 P.2d 1258 (Or. 1979).
· cites it 5× “A modification in the federal basis of an Oregon residence for the purpose of eliminating previously nonrecognized gains realized from the sale of a former out-of-state residence is authorized under ORS 316.047. "3. Gains realized, but not recognized, from the sale of a former…”
Christian v. Dep't of Revenue, 526 P.2d 538 (Or. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Rather, by passage of ORS 316.047, it intended that adjustments be made in the taxpayer’s net income to alleviate inconsistent treatment resulting from the transition from the Personal Income Tax Act of 1953 to the Internal Revenue Code.”
Bronson v. Dep't of Revenue, 5 Or. Tax 86 (Or. T.C. 1972).
· cites it 5× “In determining that the petitioner should have reported the total annuity payment received in 1969 ($1,200) as Oregon income, the department depended upon ORS 316.047, a section dubbed by the codifiers as a “Transitional provision to prevent doubling income or deductions.”
Seymour v. Dep't of Revenue, 809 P.2d 100 (Or. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Taxpayers invoke ORS 316.047 and ORS 316.007 in support of their contention that such “double” taxation as cases like Bechtel allowed is no longer permissible.”
Chapin v. Dep't of Revenue, 5 Or. Tax 571 (Or. T.C. 1974).
· cites it 5× “In arguing their position before the Department of Revenue in the course of the administrative hearing, plaintiffs cited ORS 316.047 and 316.067 in the new law as imposing the duty and granting the authority to the defendant to accept the modification of federal taxable income…”
Zemke v. Dep't of Revenue, 17 Or. Tax 18 (Or. T.C. 2003).
““(3) If any provision in ORS 316.047 or 316.127 appears to require an adjustment to a net operating loss, net operating loss carryback or net operating loss carryfor-ward contrary to the provisions of this section, that adjustment shall not be made.”
Rinehart v. Dep't of Revenue, 5 Or. Tax 210 (Or. T.C. 1973).
· cites it 6× “) In accordance with its interpretation of the new act, particularly ORS 316.047, defendant disallowed plaintiffs’ deduction of $2,240.”
Bechtold v. Dep't of Revenue, 5 Or. Tax 629 (Or. T.C. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Such a deduction would not be recognized by § 172 of the Internal Bevenue Code, but any reference to net operating losses in such Oregon stat *636 utes as ORS 316.047, by action of ORS 316.062 and ORS 316.”
Christian v. Dep't of Revenue, 5 Or. Tax 364 (Or. T.C. 1973).
· cites it 2× “A state loss carry-over from 1967, good under the former law in 1969, is a nullity as to 1969 under the present act unless ORS 316.047, relating to taxing the same income twice, proves to be applicable (which has not been shown in this suit).”
Seymour v. Dep't of Revenue, 11 Or. Tax 394 (Or. T.C. 1990).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs maintain this is double taxation which can be avoided by applying ORS 316.047. Defendant contends that it is not double taxation because there are two separate taxes involved, income taxes and inheritance taxes.”
Couch v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 396 (Or. T.C. 2001).
“ORS 316.047. 3 Internal Revenue Code (IRC), section 61(a) defines gross income to include “all income from whatever source derived.”
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.