Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505 (2026)

Tax imposed on distribution of tobacco products other than oral nicotine products; rate

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      323.505 Tax imposed on distribution of tobacco products other than oral nicotine products; rate. (1) A tax is hereby imposed upon the distribution of tobacco products in this state. The tax imposed by this section is intended to be a direct tax on the consumer, for which payment upon distribution is required to achieve convenience and facility in the collection and administration of the tax. The tax shall be imposed on a distributor at the time the distributor distributes tobacco products.

      (2) The tax imposed under this section shall be imposed at the rate of:

      (a) Sixty-five percent of the wholesale sales price of cigars, but not to exceed one dollar per cigar;

      (b) One dollar and seventy-eight cents per ounce based on the net weight determined by the manufacturer, in the case of moist snuff, except that the minimum tax under this paragraph is $2.14 per retail container; or

      (c) Sixty-five percent of the wholesale sales price of all tobacco products that are not cigars, moist snuff or oral nicotine products.

      (3) For reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2022, the rates of tax applicable to moist snuff under subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be adjusted for each biennium according to the cost-of-living adjustment for the calendar year. The Department of Revenue shall recompute the rates for each biennium by adding to the rates in subsection (2)(b) of this section the product obtained by multiplying the rates in subsection (2)(b) of this section by a factor that is equal to 0.25 multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the monthly averaged U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for the 12 consecutive months ending August 31 of the prior calendar year exceeds the monthly averaged U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for the 12 consecutive months ending August 31, 2020.

      (4) If the tax imposed under this section does not equal an amount calculable to a whole cent, the tax shall be equal to the next higher whole cent. However, the amount remitted to the Department of Revenue by the taxpayer for each quarter shall be equal only to 98.5 percent of the total taxes due and payable by the taxpayer for the quarter.

      (5) A tax under this section is not imposed on inhalant delivery systems that are:

      (a) Marketed and sold solely for the purpose of vaporizing or aerosolizing marijuana items as defined in ORS 475C.009; or

      (b) Purchased in a medical marijuana dispensary that is registered under ORS 475C.833 by a person to whom a registry identification card has been issued under ORS 475C.783.

      (6) No tobacco product shall be subject to the tax if the base product or other intermediate form thereof has previously been taxed under this section. [1985 c.816 §16; 1997 c.2 §9; 1999 c.21 §60; 2001 c.982 §3; 2003 c.46 §48; 2003 c.804 §32; 2009 c.717 §2; 2013 s.s. c.5 §18a; 2019 c.525 §12; 2025 c.581 §4a]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021).
Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021). · cites it 12× “” See ORS 323.505 (1)(c); ORS 323.500(16). On its TPT returns for the periods at issue, taxpayer calculated its “wholesale sales price” for tobacco products sold into Oregon using the line-item price for those products as shown on the invoices from suppliers.”
Straube v. Myers, 132 P.3d 658 (Or. 2006). · cites it 2× “The proposed measure also would increase direct taxes on the consumers of tobacco products by amending an existing statute, ORS 323.505. Currently, those taxes are fixed at a rate of 65 percent of the wholesale price of the tobacco product (not to exceed 50 cents per cigar).”
Downer v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc 4952 (or.tax 5-24-2011) (Or. T.C. 2011). · cites it 12× “6 ORS 323.505. The tax is collected from "distributors," as that term is defined by ORS 323.”
Global Hookah Distributors Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015). · cites it 10× “, 20 OTR 273 , 276–77 (2011) (citing ORS 323.505). “Tobacco products” are defined as “cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, moist snuff, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and…”
Global Distrib. & Wholesaler v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff is undoubtedly a “distributor” who “distribute[d],” and thus subject to taxation under ORS 323.505. A. Taxability of packaging and exclusivity and promotional fees To address the more difficult issues, the court must determine which of the items distributed by…”
Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017). · cites it 2× “ORS 323.505(2)(a). For other tobacco products, the tax is either a similar percentage of the wholesale price or an amount by weight of the product.”
Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017). · cites it 2× “ORS 323.505(2)(a). For other tobacco products, the tax is either a similar percentage of the wholesale price or an amount by weight of the product.”
Scappoose Smoke Shop v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 3× “500(7)(d); ORS 323.505; ORS 323.538(4)(b). The scope of the court’s inquiry is limited to whether Plaintiff has shown that tax was paid on the Richwood cigars and the Starbuzz shisha.”
Dixon v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2013). · cites it 3× “However, the Hemi 3 Plaintiffs also cite ORS 323.505 in support of this argument. (Ptfs’ Closing Arg at 3-4.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(1) — 6 cases
Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021). “” See ORS 323.505 (1)(c); ORS 323.500(16). On its TPT returns for the periods at issue, taxpayer calculated its “wholesale sales price” for tobacco products sold into Oregon using the line-item price for those products as shown on the invoices from suppliers.”
Global Hookah Distributors Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015). “, 20 OTR 273 , 276–77 (2011) (citing ORS 323.505). “Tobacco products” are defined as “cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, moist snuff, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and…”
Downer v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc 4952 (or.tax 5-24-2011) (Or. T.C. 2011). “6 ORS 323.505. The tax is collected from "distributors," as that term is defined by ORS 323.”
Global Distrib. & Wholesaler v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012). “Plaintiff is undoubtedly a “distributor” who “distribute[d],” and thus subject to taxation under ORS 323.505. A. Taxability of packaging and exclusivity and promotional fees To address the more difficult issues, the court must determine which of the items distributed by…”
Scappoose Smoke Shop v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2013). “500(7)(d); ORS 323.505; ORS 323.538(4)(b). The scope of the court’s inquiry is limited to whether Plaintiff has shown that tax was paid on the Richwood cigars and the Starbuzz shisha.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(1)(a) — 1 case
Downer v. Dept. of Revenue, Tc 4952 (or.tax 5-24-2011) (Or. T.C. 2011). “6 ORS 323.505. The tax is collected from "distributors," as that term is defined by ORS 323.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(2) — 3 cases
Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021). “” See ORS 323.505 (1)(c); ORS 323.500(16). On its TPT returns for the periods at issue, taxpayer calculated its “wholesale sales price” for tobacco products sold into Oregon using the line-item price for those products as shown on the invoices from suppliers.”
Straube v. Myers, 132 P.3d 658 (Or. 2006). “The proposed measure also would increase direct taxes on the consumers of tobacco products by amending an existing statute, ORS 323.505. Currently, those taxes are fixed at a rate of 65 percent of the wholesale price of the tobacco product (not to exceed 50 cents per cigar).”
Global Hookah Distributors Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015). “, 20 OTR 273 , 276–77 (2011) (citing ORS 323.505). “Tobacco products” are defined as “cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, moist snuff, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(2)(a) — 3 cases
Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017). “ORS 323.505(2)(a). For other tobacco products, the tax is either a similar percentage of the wholesale price or an amount by weight of the product.”
Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017). “ORS 323.505(2)(a). For other tobacco products, the tax is either a similar percentage of the wholesale price or an amount by weight of the product.”
Global Distrib. & Wholesaler v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012). “Plaintiff is undoubtedly a “distributor” who “distribute[d],” and thus subject to taxation under ORS 323.505. A. Taxability of packaging and exclusivity and promotional fees To address the more difficult issues, the court must determine which of the items distributed by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(2)(b) — 4 cases
Global Distrib. & Wholesaler v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012). “Plaintiff is undoubtedly a “distributor” who “distribute[d],” and thus subject to taxation under ORS 323.505. A. Taxability of packaging and exclusivity and promotional fees To address the more difficult issues, the court must determine which of the items distributed by…”
Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017). “ORS 323.505(2)(a). For other tobacco products, the tax is either a similar percentage of the wholesale price or an amount by weight of the product.”
Wilson/Fitz v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017). “ORS 323.505(2)(a). For other tobacco products, the tax is either a similar percentage of the wholesale price or an amount by weight of the product.”
Global Hookah Distributors Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015). “, 20 OTR 273 , 276–77 (2011) (citing ORS 323.505). “Tobacco products” are defined as “cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, moist snuff, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(2)(c) — 2 cases
Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021). “” See ORS 323.505 (1)(c); ORS 323.500(16). On its TPT returns for the periods at issue, taxpayer calculated its “wholesale sales price” for tobacco products sold into Oregon using the line-item price for those products as shown on the invoices from suppliers.”
Global Hookah Distributors Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. (Or. T.C. 2015). “, 20 OTR 273 , 276–77 (2011) (citing ORS 323.505). “Tobacco products” are defined as “cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, moist snuff, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(3) — 1 case
Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021). “” See ORS 323.505 (1)(c); ORS 323.500(16). On its TPT returns for the periods at issue, taxpayer calculated its “wholesale sales price” for tobacco products sold into Oregon using the line-item price for those products as shown on the invoices from suppliers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(4) — 1 case
Global Distrib. & Wholesaler v. Dep't of Revenue (Or. T.C. 2012). “Plaintiff is undoubtedly a “distributor” who “distribute[d],” and thus subject to taxation under ORS 323.505. A. Taxability of packaging and exclusivity and promotional fees To address the more difficult issues, the court must determine which of the items distributed by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 323.505(5) — 1 case
Global Hookah Distributors, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 24 Or. Tax 562 (Or. T.C. 2021). “” See ORS 323.505 (1)(c); ORS 323.500(16). On its TPT returns for the periods at issue, taxpayer calculated its “wholesale sales price” for tobacco products sold into Oregon using the line-item price for those products as shown on the invoices from suppliers.”
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.