Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.018

Statement of purpose

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

317.018 Statement of purpose. It is the intent of the Legislative Assembly:

(1) To make the Oregon corporate excise tax law, insofar as it relates to the measurement of taxable income, identical to the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code, as in effect and applicable for the tax year of the taxpayer, to the end that taxable income of a corporation for Oregon purposes is the same as it is for federal income tax purposes, subject to Oregon’s jurisdiction to tax, and subject to the additions, subtractions, adjustments and modifications contained in this chapter.

(2) To achieve the results desired under subsection (1) of this section by application of the various provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code relating to the definitions for corporations, of income, deductions, accounting methods, accounting periods, taxation of corporations, basis and other pertinent provisions relating to gross income. It is not the intent of the Legislative Assembly to adopt federal Internal Revenue Code provisions dealing with the computation of tax, tax credits or any other provisions designed to mitigate the amount of tax due.

(3) To impose on each corporation doing business within this state an excise tax for the privilege of carrying on or doing that business measured by its federal taxable income as adjusted in this chapter. [1983 c.162 §2; 1984 c.1 §7; 1985 c.802 §21; 1987 c.293 §33; 1989 c.625 §16; 1991 c.457 §9; 1993 c.726 §39; 1995 c.556 §13; 1997 c.839 §28; 2009 c.5 §30; 2009 c.909 §§33,34; 2010 c.82 §29]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2016) ortc · cites it 3× “That statement was based in part upon the language contained in ORS 317.018. That statute provides that the intent of the legislature is “[t]o make the Oregon corporate excise tax law, insofar as it relates to the measurement of taxable income, identical to the provisions of the…”

Department of Revenue v. Penn Independent Corp. (1999) ortc “Although Penn-America did business in Oregon as a foreign company, it was exempt from Oregon excise tax. 3 Corporations doing business both within and without Oregon must apportion their income based upon their business activities in Oregon.”

Terrace Tower U.S.A., Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1999) ortc · cites it 2× “ORS 317.018(1). For a group of affiliated corporations such as TT USA and TT USA PDX, the starting point is consolidated federal taxable income.”

Apple Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc · cites it 3× “” ORS 317.018(1). The legislature has further declared its intention to achieve that result “by application of the various provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code relating to the definitions for corporations, of income, deductions, accounting methods, accounting periods,…”

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 2× “]” ORS 317.018(1). To achieve that purpose, Oregon applies IRC provisions “relating to the ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190031N 12 definitions for corporations, of income, deductions, accounting methods, accounting periods, taxation of corporations, basis…”

Cheng Shin Rubber USA, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2017) ortc “ORS 317.018(3).3 The Oregon courts have “extended the reach of the excise tax to the limit defined by the federal constitution.”

ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2020) ortc “Substantial nexus generally Oregon “impose[s] on each corporation doing business within this state an excise tax for the privilege of carrying on or doing that business measured by its federal taxable income as adjusted in this chapter.”

Healthguard Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1995) ortc · cites it 2× “In ORS 317.018(1), the legislature expressed its intent: “To make the Oregon corporate excise and income tax law, insofar as it relates to the measurement of taxable income, identical to the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code * * *.”

Burgin/Mathews v. Myers (2006) or “” ORS 317.018(1). The proposed measure would add further modifications to those already listed in *174 chapter 317, such that certain deductions or exclusions allowed in the Internal Revenue Code could not be permitted when calculating Oregon corporate taxable income.”

Crystal Communications, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc 4769 (or.tax 7-19-2010) (2010) ortc “007; ORS 317.018; ORS 318.020. The statutory reference to jurisdiction to tax can only mean the federal statutory or constitutional limitations applicable to Oregon.”

Rent-A-Center Inc v. Department of Revenue (2014) ortc “Federal constitution “Under ORS 317.018 and the case law of this court, the legislature is considered in ORS 317.”

Dept. of Rev. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2015) ortc “Maytag cannot be viewed as a reason for this court to now address the question before it by reference to the ultimate test of legislative intent. H. Ann Sacks Tile & Stone, Inc.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.018(1) — 7 cases

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2016) ortc “That statement was based in part upon the language contained in ORS 317.018. That statute provides that the intent of the legislature is “[t]o make the Oregon corporate excise tax law, insofar as it relates to the measurement of taxable income, identical to the provisions of the…”

Terrace Tower U.S.A., Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1999) ortc “ORS 317.018(1). For a group of affiliated corporations such as TT USA and TT USA PDX, the starting point is consolidated federal taxable income.”

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “]” ORS 317.018(1). To achieve that purpose, Oregon applies IRC provisions “relating to the ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC-MD 190031N 12 definitions for corporations, of income, deductions, accounting methods, accounting periods, taxation of corporations, basis…”

Apple Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc “” ORS 317.018(1). The legislature has further declared its intention to achieve that result “by application of the various provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code relating to the definitions for corporations, of income, deductions, accounting methods, accounting periods,…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.018(2) — 3 cases

Healthguard Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1995) ortc “In ORS 317.018(1), the legislature expressed its intent: “To make the Oregon corporate excise and income tax law, insofar as it relates to the measurement of taxable income, identical to the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code * * *.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.018(3) — 4 cases

Cheng Shin Rubber USA, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2017) ortc “ORS 317.018(3).3 The Oregon courts have “extended the reach of the excise tax to the limit defined by the federal constitution.”

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.