Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705

Definitions

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

317.705 Definitions. As used in ORS 317.705 to 317.715:

(1) “Affiliated group” means an affiliated group of corporations as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code.

(2) “Unitary group” means a corporation or group of corporations engaged in business activities that constitute a unitary business.

(3)(a) “Unitary business” means a business enterprise in which there exists directly or indirectly between the members or parts of the enterprise a sharing or exchange of value as demonstrated by:

(A) Centralized management or a common executive force;

(B) Centralized administrative services or functions resulting in economies of scale; or

(b) “Unitary business” may include, but is not limited to, a business enterprise the activities of which:

(A) Are in the same general line of business (such as manufacturing, wholesaling or retailing); or

(B) Constitute steps in a vertically integrated process (such as the steps involved in the production of natural resources, which might include exploration, mining, refining and marketing).

(c) Whether two or more corporations that are included in the same consolidated federal return are engaged in a unitary business may be determined by making reference to any corporation that is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests. [1984 c.1 §4; 1985 c.802 §30a; 1997 c.325 §45; 2007 c.323 §1; 2017 c.181 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc · cites it 5× “08[2][b][i] 4-5 (Aug 2021). 364 Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v.”

Stancorp Financial Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2013) ortc · cites it 6× “However, the cases are different in that in Costco the federal consolidated return member in question (1) had no connec- tion with Oregon, and (2) did not and was not required to file an income tax return in Oregon.”

Cook v. Dept. of Rev. (2018) ortc · cites it 4× “See ORS 317.705 - 305.715. These rules apply today and achieve, by purpose- ful indirection, a combination requirement for certain corporations.”

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc · cites it 2× “That is obvious from the definition of a “unitary group” and a “single trade or business” in ORS 317.705. As in the past, determinations of income were to occur for each unitary group—that is each group of companies engaged in a single trade or business.”

Estee Lauder Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (2000) ortc · cites it 2× “See ORS 317.705(1) (referring to IRC section 1504, which sets forth additional requirements).”

Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries I v. Dept. of Rev. (2020) ortc · cites it 2× “Assuming that all of the affiliates in the federal consolidated group are engaged in the same “unitary busi- ness” (a point not at issue in these motions), the third step is to apply the various “additions,” “subtractions,” and other modifications to federal consolidated taxable…”

Maytag Corp. v. Department of Revenue (1993) ortc “” Or Laws 1984, ch 1, § 4 (codified as ORS 317.705 (1985 Replacement Part)). It would appear that the Oregon statutes before and after Container Corp.”

US Bancorp v. Department of Revenue (1994) ortc “ORS 317.705 provides in part: “(2) TJnitary group’ means a corporation or group of corporations engaged in business activities that constitute a single trade or business.”

Rent-A-Center Inc v. Department of Revenue (2014) ortc · cites it 27× “See Enrolled SB 178 at 2 (“The amendments to ORS 317.705 * * * by section[] 1 * * * of this 2007 Act appl[ies] to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2007.”

ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc · cites it 4× “ORS 317.705(1) (defining “affiliated group” as under IRC § 1504); IRC § 1504(a) (generally defining “affiliated group” as 80-percent affiliates based on stock ownership); ORS 317.”

Microsoft Corporation v. Dept. of Rev. (2025) ortc · cites it 4× “See Or Laws 1984, ch 1, § 9 (Special Session). The text of ORS 317.267(2) says nothing about apportionment of dividends.”

Microsoft Corporation v. Dept. of Rev. (2025) ortc · cites it 4× “As context, however, the same 1984 law added the provisions now codified (with later amendments) as ORS 317.705, 317.710, and 317.715, as well as amendments to ORS 317.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705(1) — 4 cases

Stancorp Financial Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2013) ortc “However, the cases are different in that in Costco the federal consolidated return member in question (1) had no connec- tion with Oregon, and (2) did not and was not required to file an income tax return in Oregon.”

Estee Lauder Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (2000) ortc “See ORS 317.705(1) (referring to IRC section 1504, which sets forth additional requirements).”

ABC Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc “ORS 317.705(1) (defining “affiliated group” as under IRC § 1504); IRC § 1504(a) (generally defining “affiliated group” as 80-percent affiliates based on stock ownership); ORS 317.”

Stancorp Financial Group and Subsidiaries v. Department of Revenue (2012) ortc

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705(2) — 10 cases

Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “08[2][b][i] 4-5 (Aug 2021). 364 Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v.”

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc “That is obvious from the definition of a “unitary group” and a “single trade or business” in ORS 317.705. As in the past, determinations of income were to occur for each unitary group—that is each group of companies engaged in a single trade or business.”

Cook v. Dept. of Rev. (2018) ortc “See ORS 317.705 - 305.715. These rules apply today and achieve, by purpose- ful indirection, a combination requirement for certain corporations.”

Estee Lauder Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (2000) ortc “See ORS 317.705(1) (referring to IRC section 1504, which sets forth additional requirements).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705(3) — 9 cases

Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “08[2][b][i] 4-5 (Aug 2021). 364 Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v.”

Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries I v. Dept. of Rev. (2020) ortc “Assuming that all of the affiliates in the federal consolidated group are engaged in the same “unitary busi- ness” (a point not at issue in these motions), the third step is to apply the various “additions,” “subtractions,” and other modifications to federal consolidated taxable…”

Microsoft Corporation v. Dept. of Rev. (2025) ortc “See Or Laws 1984, ch 1, § 9 (Special Session). The text of ORS 317.267(2) says nothing about apportionment of dividends.”

Microsoft Corporation v. Dept. of Rev. (2025) ortc “As context, however, the same 1984 law added the provisions now codified (with later amendments) as ORS 317.705, 317.710, and 317.715, as well as amendments to ORS 317.”

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2020) ortc

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705(3)(a) — 6 cases

Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc “08[2][b][i] 4-5 (Aug 2021). 364 Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v.”

Rent-A-Center Inc v. Department of Revenue (2014) ortc “See Enrolled SB 178 at 2 (“The amendments to ORS 317.705 * * * by section[] 1 * * * of this 2007 Act appl[ies] to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2007.”

Dept. of Rev. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2015) ortc

Apple Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (2024) ortc

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705(3)(a)(A) — 2 cases

Dept. of Rev. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2015) ortc

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 317.705(3)(b) — 2 cases

Oracle Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. (2012) ortc

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.