316.124
Determination of adjusted gross income of nonresident partner. (1) In determining the adjusted
gross income of a nonresident partner of any partnership, there shall be
included only that part derived from or connected with sources in this state of
the partner’s distributive share of items of partnership income, gain, loss and
deduction (or item thereof) entering into the federal adjusted gross income of
the partner, as such part is determined under rules adopted by the Department
of Revenue in accordance with the general rules in ORS 316.127.
(2) In
determining the sources of a nonresident partner’s income, no effect shall be
given to a provision in the partnership agreement which:
(a) Characterizes
payments to the partner as being for services or for the use of capital, or
allocated to the partner, as income or gain from sources outside this state, a
greater proportion of the partner’s distributive share of partnership income or
gain than the ratio of partnership income or gain from sources outside this
state to partnership income or gain from all sources, except as authorized in
subsection (4) of this section; or
(b) Allocates to
the partner a greater proportion of a partnership item of loss or deduction
connected with sources in this state than the proportionate share of the
partner, for federal income tax purposes, of partnership loss or deduction
generally, except as authorized in subsection (4) of this section.
(3) Any
modification to federal taxable income described in this chapter that relates
to an item of partnership income, gain, loss or deduction (or item thereof)
shall be made in accordance with the partner’s distributive share, for federal
income tax purposes of the item to which the modification relates, but limited
to the portion of such item derived from or connected with sources in this
state.
(4) The
department may, on application, authorize the use of such other methods of
determining a nonresident partner’s portion of partnership items derived from
or connected with sources in this state, and the modifications related thereto,
as may be appropriate and equitable, on such terms and conditions as it may
require.
(5) A nonresident
partner’s distributive share of items of income, gain, loss or deduction (or
item thereof) shall be determined under ORS 314.714 (2). The character of
partnership items for a nonresident partner shall be determined under ORS
314.714 (1). [1989 c.625 §32 (enacted in lieu of 316.352)]
316.125 [1953 c.304 §17; repealed by 1969
c.493 §99]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
· cites it 28× “784, and ORS 316.124 to 314.127 call for apportionment of the income of each PTE at the PTE level, when apportionment is required.”
Reeve v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 148 (Or. T.C. 2000).
· cites it 7× “The court’s decision in that case was based on ORS 316.124. That statute provides the rules for determining the adjusted gross income of a nonresident partner of any partnership.”
Reeve v. Dep't of Revenue, 37 P.3d 981 (Or. 2001).
· cites it 8× “ORS 316.124(1). 2 In their 1993 state tax returns, taxpayers claimed that the bulk of their income from the partnership did not consist of taxable distributive shares.”
Pratt & Larsen Tile v. Dep't of Revenue, 13 Or. Tax 270 (Or. T.C. 1995).
“One of those exceptions is ORS 316.124(2), which provides: “In determining the sources of a nonresident partner’s income, no effect shall be given to a provision in the partnership agreement which: “(a) Characterizes payments to the partner as being for services or for the use…”
Olejko v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 Or. Tax 232 (Or. T.C. 1997).
· cites it 3× “” ORS 316.124(1). Income which is attributable to sources both within and without the state must be apportioned.”
Woolum v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2026).
“5 See ORS 316.124(3). Plaintiff’s approach would collapse the separate steps of sourcing the item and adding back the amount deducted at the entity level for federal purposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 316.124(1) — 3 cases
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“784, and ORS 316.124 to 314.127 call for apportionment of the income of each PTE at the PTE level, when apportionment is required.”
Reeve v. Dep't of Revenue, 37 P.3d 981 (Or. 2001).
“ORS 316.124(1). 2 In their 1993 state tax returns, taxpayers claimed that the bulk of their income from the partnership did not consist of taxable distributive shares.”
Olejko v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 Or. Tax 232 (Or. T.C. 1997).
“” ORS 316.124(1). Income which is attributable to sources both within and without the state must be apportioned.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 316.124(2) — 5 cases
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“784, and ORS 316.124 to 314.127 call for apportionment of the income of each PTE at the PTE level, when apportionment is required.”
Pratt & Larsen Tile v. Dep't of Revenue, 13 Or. Tax 270 (Or. T.C. 1995).
“One of those exceptions is ORS 316.124(2), which provides: “In determining the sources of a nonresident partner’s income, no effect shall be given to a provision in the partnership agreement which: “(a) Characterizes payments to the partner as being for services or for the use…”
Reeve v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 148 (Or. T.C. 2000).
“The court’s decision in that case was based on ORS 316.124. That statute provides the rules for determining the adjusted gross income of a nonresident partner of any partnership.”
Reeve v. Dep't of Revenue, 37 P.3d 981 (Or. 2001).
“ORS 316.124(1). 2 In their 1993 state tax returns, taxpayers claimed that the bulk of their income from the partnership did not consist of taxable distributive shares.”
Olejko v. Dep't of Revenue, 14 Or. Tax 232 (Or. T.C. 1997).
“” ORS 316.124(1). Income which is attributable to sources both within and without the state must be apportioned.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 316.124(3) — 2 cases
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“784, and ORS 316.124 to 314.127 call for apportionment of the income of each PTE at the PTE level, when apportionment is required.”
Woolum v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2026).
“5 See ORS 316.124(3). Plaintiff’s approach would collapse the separate steps of sourcing the item and adding back the amount deducted at the entity level for federal purposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 316.124(4) — 1 case
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“784, and ORS 316.124 to 314.127 call for apportionment of the income of each PTE at the PTE level, when apportionment is required.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 316.124(5) — 2 cases
Cook v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 107 (Or. T.C. 2018).
“784, and ORS 316.124 to 314.127 call for apportionment of the income of each PTE at the PTE level, when apportionment is required.”
Reeve v. Dep't of Revenue, 37 P.3d 981 (Or. 2001).
“ORS 316.124(1). 2 In their 1993 state tax returns, taxpayers claimed that the bulk of their income from the partnership did not consist of taxable distributive shares.”
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.