Microsoft Corporation v. Dept. of Rev.

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT

REGULAR DIVISION

Corporation Excise Tax

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, )

a Washington corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) TC 5413

v. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )

State of Oregon, ) AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-

) MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

Defendant. ) JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS

This order amends and restates the court’s August 29, 2024, Order on Cross-Motions for

Summary Judgment. Amendments result from Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration dated

October 9, 2024, and the parties’ subsequent briefing followed by oral argument on January 14,

2025. Further explanation of the parties’ arguments that have prompted amendments, as well as

a marked copy showing the changes in this order, are found in the court’s Order on

Reconsideration, issued today.

This is the second recent case in this court involving “deemed dividends” arising under

subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code. 1 Subpart F generally deems earnings and profits of

“controlled foreign corporations” (CFCs) to have been distributed annually to their significant

1

Unless otherwise indicated, references to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC or the Code) are to the federal

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, title 26 of the United States Code, as amended by the 2017 act commonly known as

the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub L 115-97, 131 Stat 2054 (2017), and as otherwise amended and in effect for the tax

year at issue in this case. The portion of the Code commonly referred to as subpart F consists of sections 951

through 965.

domestic shareholders as an addition to the shareholders’ federal gross income, if those earnings

and profits have not been subject to federal income tax in the hands of the CFCs. 2 See IRC §

951. The earlier case, Oracle Corp. and Subsidiaries II v. Dept. of Rev., 24 OTR 359, 360

(2021) (Oracle II), involved tax years well before 2017, when subpart F’s deemed distribution

requirement applied only to certain types of “mostly passive income” earned during the tax year,

thus allowing federal income tax on other types of CFC earnings and profits to continue to be

deferred indefinitely. Moore v. United States, 602 US 572, 144 S Ct 1680, 219 L Ed 2d 275, 281

(2024). The main difference is that this case involves a one-time requirement, enacted in 2017

and likewise codified in subpart F, to apply the same deemed dividend treatment to up to 31

years’ worth of CFC earnings and profits on which United States taxation had been deferred

under subpart F. 3 The court refers to this one-time amount, determined under federal law, as the

“Federal Repatriation Amount.”

The requirement to add the Federal Repatriation Amount to income was a single,

transitional provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). See Pub L 115-97, § 14103,

131 Stat 2054, 2195 (2017) (amending IRC § 965). Other provisions imposed a greatly reduced

federal tax rate on the Federal Repatriation Amount, provided extended time to pay the

additional federal tax, and prospectively changed substantial features of the federal taxation of

multinational businesses. Oregon incorporated the federal requirement to add the Federal

Repatriation Amount to income but did not set a lower tax rate for that amount. However,

Defendant determined that an existing 80 percent “subtraction” available to certain corporate

2

In this order, a “domestic” corporation refers to one incorporated under the laws of any state of the United

States or under the laws of the United States; a “foreign” corporation refers to any other corporation. See IRC §

7701(a) (4)-(5).

3

In this case, the deferral period is shorter; it included earnings and profits that had “accumulated since the

early 2000s.” (Stip Facts at 3, ¶ 11.)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 2 of 62

taxpayers applied. The court refers to the amount remaining after subtracting 80 percent of the

Federal Repatriation Amount as the “20 Percent Repatriation Amount.”

The issues in this case involve how to determine Oregon’s apportioned share of the 20

Percent Repatriation Amount, applying Oregon’s version of the Uniform Division of Income for

Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA). See ORS 314.615 (requiring apportionment when taxpayer has

income from business activity taxable within and without Oregon); ORS 314.605(1) (defining

ORS 314.605 to 314.675 as UDITPA). 4

Plaintiff, as the domestic common parent corporation of numerous domestic and foreign

subsidiaries, had a large Federal Repatriation Amount during the tax year at issue, the fiscal and

tax year ending on June 30, 2018 (TYE 2018). Applying Defendant’s published guidance on the

TCJA when filing its original Oregon return for TYE 2018, Plaintiff included the 20 Percent

Repatriation Amount in its income but did not include any portion of the Federal Repatriation

Amount in either the numerator or the denominator of the apportionment fraction, which consists

of gross receipts (“sales”) in Oregon over gross receipts everywhere. Subject to certain

computation issues to be resolved by the parties, the court refers to the amounts of Oregon

taxable income and tax, as shown on the original return, as the assessment. 5

Plaintiff paid the tax pursuant to the assessment but immediately applied for a partial

refund, claiming a right to increase the denominator by the amount of the Federal Repatriation

4

Unless otherwise noted, the court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2015

edition.

5

Following entry of the court’s August 29, 2024, Order on Cross-Motions for Summary

Judgment, the parties reached a Stipulation on Computational Issues (“Stipulation”), which was filed with

the court on January 10, 2025. The court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation, and the figures therein,

and has determined that while it will result in a slightly different refund amount for Plaintiff, it does not

materially change the outcome on any of the legal issues addressed in the Amended Order on Cross-

Motions for Summary Judgment or the Order on Reconsideration. Therefore, in this Order the court

continues to refer to the parties’ positions as they existed at the time the original Order on Cross-Motions

for Summary Judgment was entered.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 3 of 62

Amount, which would reduce Oregon’s fractional share of Plaintiff’s overall taxable income.

See Table 1 in Part IV, below. Defendant denied the refund, adhering to its published position

that no amount could be included in either the numerator or the denominator. Plaintiff appeals,

presenting two main theories for its refund claim. 6

First, Plaintiff relies on the court’s analysis, in Oracle II, of the definition of “sales” in

ORS 314.665(6)(a). That definition initially excludes deemed dividends under subpart F because

they “aris[e] from the * * * holding of intangible assets”; however, an exception treats those

amounts as sales if they are “derived from the taxpayer’s primary business activity.” Oracle II

determined that subpart F amounts are sales under the exception if the CFC and the taxpayer

were engaged together in a single unitary business and the CFC’s earnings and profits

constituting the subpart F amounts are from a single “primary business activity” shared by the

CFC and the taxpayer. The court refers to this statutory interpretation theory as “reinclusion” of

the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount in the sales factor. 7

Second, Plaintiff seeks what is known informally as “factor representation” or “factor

relief” under ORS 314.667, which allows a taxpayer to request an alternative allocation and

apportionment method if the statutory method (1) fails to “fairly represent” the extent of the

6

Plaintiff’s first four claims seek declaratory relief. (See Ptf’s First Amend Compl at 25-28). As a

procedural matter, the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief, as Plaintiff has,

and has exercised, a complete remedy by claiming a refund. See Fields v. Dept. of Rev., 19 OTR 547, 550 (2009)

(“In this case, taxpayers have a complete remedy available to them, if they are correct legally, in the form of

proceedings under ORS 305.270 for refund. In such a case where a timely specific statutory remedy exists, courts

should not entertain declaratory judgment actions.”). Having concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to the

declaratory relief it seeks, the court treats the substance of Plaintiff’s first four claims for relief as supporting its

refund claim and its motion.

7

Defendant, which was barred procedurally from appealing Oracle II to the Supreme Court, contests the

reinclusion theory.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 4 of 62

taxpayer’s business activity in Oregon, or (2) is unconstitutional. 8 In all of its arguments,

Plaintiff generally challenges the assessment as inaccurate and unfair.

The court agrees with Plaintiff as to its first theory. The court adheres to, and further

explains, its reinclusion analysis in Oracle II. However, reinclusion does not fully resolve the

parties’ cross-motions because the refund amount under reinclusion is somewhat less than one-

half the amount Plaintiff requests. See Table 2 in Part IV, below. Nominally, Plaintiff pursues

its two theories independently, such that the court’s decision that reinclusion applies simply

reduces the amount at issue for factor relief purposes. However, Plaintiff fails to make any

specific argument about the inaccuracy or unfairness of that reduced amount at issue. Plaintiff

instead confines itself to arguing that the assessment, unmodified by reinclusion of the 20

Percent Repatriation Amount in the sales factor denominator, is inaccurate and unfair. Plaintiff

thus has failed to carry its burden of proof that it is entitled to factor relief beyond what

reinclusion already provides. For this reason, the court will grant summary judgment to Plaintiff

in part, to the extent of awarding a refund computed under reinclusion, but the court must deny

any further relief under a factor representation theory.

Mindful, however, that the Oregon Supreme Court has not had occasion to review this

court’s reinclusion analysis in the context of deemed dividends, the court proceeds to review

Plaintiff’s arguments for factor relief under ORS 314.667 based on the unmodified assessment.

As to the “fairly represent” statutory standard, Plaintiff argues that including the 20

Percent Repatriation Amount in taxable income without changing the apportionment factor is

inherently inaccurate and unfair because the addition of a large amount of income to the tax base,

with no increase in the denominator of the apportionment percentage, results in a tax amount that

8

The court did not address factor relief in Oracle II.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 5 of 62

is necessarily inaccurate. However, based on the legislative history of the 1984 act, the court

concludes that the 80 percent subtraction under ORS 317.267(2)(b), including for dividends from

foreign subsidiaries excluded from an Oregon consolidated return, functions as a form of factor

representation in Oregon’s water’s-edge system. This leaves only the question whether the

degree of factor representation that Oregon provides is sufficiently accurate or fair.

Considering Plaintiff’s proposals for alternative methods for insight on its fairness

arguments, the court is not persuaded that the assessment violates the statutory “fairly represent”

standard. See Table 3 in Part IV, below.

• The first proposal would add to the denominator 20 percent of the CFCs’ gross receipts.

The court finds that this proposal goes too far in relying on the connection between the 20

Percent Repatriation Amount and the unitary business activities of the CFCs. Although

the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount is eligible for reinclusion because it is “derived

from” activities shared by all members of the Worldwide Group, the fact remains that the

amount is a dividend in the hands of the Water’s-Edge Group because Oregon’s water’s-

edge law prevents it from being eliminated from income as an intercompany transaction

and instead causes it to arise from the holding of an intangible. As a dividend, it is

already a gross receipt. It is reasonable to assign that gross receipt, once, to the sales

factor denominator, but to assign a multiple of the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount to the

denominator, as Plaintiff proposes, would fail to recognize its character as a dividend.

• The second proposal would include 100 percent of the Federal Repatriation Amount in

the denominator. Plaintiff’s proffered reasoning is thin and reveals that it simply seeks to

replicate the amount of the CFCs’ gross receipts as under its first proposal.

• Plaintiff’s third proposal, separate accounting, would exclude the 20 Percent Repatriation

Amount from the tax base altogether, which the court finds goes too far in the opposite

direction, completely ignoring the unitary nature of the overall business enterprise and

treating the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount as nonbusiness income or as a dividend from

a subsidiary with which the Water’s Edge Group lacks either enterprise unity or asset

unity.

Turning to Plaintiff’s claims for factor relief based on unconstitutionality of the

assessment, the court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the assessment violates the requirement,

under cases interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, that income be

“fairly apportioned” to Oregon, as well as the “nexus,” antidiscrimination, and “fairly related”

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 6 of 62

requirements. Among other conclusions, the court determines that the assessment is not “grossly

distortive” because it essentially recaptures--at a lower cost to the taxpayer--income that never

would have been deferred in the first place under worldwide combined reporting. As applied to

these facts, the court is persuaded by Defendant’s analysis applying the so-called “Augusta

Formula” approved by Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court. Relatedly, under cases applying the

Foreign Commerce Clause, the court finds no “enhanced risk of multiple taxation” in the

assessment, given the United States Supreme Court’s acceptance of worldwide combined

reporting and the lesser burden that the assessment actually imposes on the Water’s Edge Group

in this case. Finally, Plaintiff’s Due Process argument fails for the same reasons that the court

finds the assessment not grossly distortive under the Commerce Clause.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

A. State Law Concepts

Relevant background on the following subjects can be found in prior cases and the

decisions cited there:

• The “unitary business” concept, a creature of state and local tax law, which generally

seeks to determine the overall income of an integrated enterprise. This can involve

treating a group of entities under common ownership and engaged together in a unitary

business as though they were a single entity, “eliminating” intercompany transactions.

By contrast, a “separate” accounting system determines each entity’s income by

measuring its transactions with other entities based on actual or hypothetical “arm’s-

length” pricing. See Oracle II, 24 OTR at 363.

• “Apportionment” of the income of a unitary business by formula, as a way to attribute a

percentage of overall income to a particular state. The apportionment formula typically is

the ratio of in-state sales to sales everywhere (the sales “factor”), but it may include

property, payroll, or other factors. See id. at 363-65. 9

9

Over time, Oregon shifted from using three factors to using only the sales factor. See Or Laws 1965, ch

152, §§ 10, 26 (three-factor apportionment method equally weighting sales, property, and payroll factors). The

three-factor method applied until 1989, when the legislature adopted a double-weighted sales factor method,

applicable to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 1991. See Or Laws 1989, ch 1088, §§ 1, 2. A decade later,

the legislature again increased the formula’s reliance on the sales factor, changing the double-weighted sales factor

method to an 80 (sales)/10 (property)/10 (payroll) method. See Or Laws 2001, ch 793, § 1. This change applied to

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 7 of 62

• State tax return and reporting methods, commonly either a “combined report” or a

“consolidated return,” that reflects the income of multiple entities engaged in the unitary

business. See id. at 365-66; ABC Inc. & Combined Affiliates v. Dept. of Rev., TC 5431,

2024 WL 2146943 at *17-19 (Or Tax, May 14, 2024). By contrast, some states use a

“separate return” method by which each entity files its own return. See, e.g., Mobil Oil

Corp. v. Com’r of Taxes of Vermont, 445 US 425, 430, 100 S Ct 1223, 63 L Ed 2d 510

(1980).

• “Worldwide” combined or consolidated reporting (in which the income of the unitary

business is determined without regard to national borders), as opposed to a “water’s-

edge” limitation that excludes entities formed under the laws of foreign countries from

the group and thus generally excludes the income of foreign entities from the tax base.

The federal tax system historically has used consolidated returns for related domestic

corporations but has excluded foreign corporations from the consolidated group, thus

requiring separate accounting, at arm’s-length pricing, to determine a domestic group’s

income from transactions with its foreign affiliates. Oracle II, 24 OTR at 366-68.

• Treatment of dividends as business income or nonbusiness income. Oracle II, at 368-74.

As to the issues in this case, the affiliates comprising the Water’s-Edge Group, including

Plaintiff, generally are a single taxpayer because they have joined together in filing a

consolidated Oregon return. See ORS 317.710(5)(c); cf. ABC Inc.2024 WL 2146943 at *7-14

(discussing exception to one-taxpayer rule, not relevant for purposes of these cross-motions, in

second sentence of ORS 317.715(3)(b)).

B. Subpart F

In Moore v. United States, the United States Supreme Court recently summarized the

development of the subpart F regime and the 2017 requirement to add the Federal Repatriation

Amount to subpart F income:

“For legal and practical reasons, Congress generally does not directly tax foreign

corporations, including American-controlled foreign corporations, on the income

that they earn outside of the United States. Instead, Congress has imposed some

taxes on income of those corporations on a pass-through basis.

tax years beginning on or after May 1, 2003. Id. at § 2. Finally, in 2005, the legislature adopted a single-sales-

factor method for tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2005. See Or Laws 2005, ch 832, §§ 48-48a.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 8 of 62

“Most notably, starting in 1962, in what is known as subpart F of the Internal

Revenue Code, Congress has treated American-controlled foreign corporations as

pass-through entities: Subpart F attributes income of the corporation to American

shareholders, and taxes those American shareholders on that income. 26 U. S. C.

§§951–952. But subpart F applies only to a small portion of the foreign

corporation’s income, mostly passive income.

“In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs

Act. 131 Stat. 2054. In a variety of ways not relevant to this case, the Act altered

the United States’ approach to international corporate taxation. The primary goal

was to encourage Americans who controlled foreign corporations to invest

earnings from their foreign investments back in the United States instead of

abroad.

“As relevant here, one piece of that intricate and multifaceted 2017 Act imposed a

new, one-time pass-through tax on some American shareholders of American-

controlled foreign corporations. That one-time tax addressed one of the problems

that had arisen under the old system: For decades before the 2017 Act, American-

controlled foreign corporations had earned and accumulated trillions of dollars in

income abroad that went almost entirely untaxed by the United States. The

foreign corporations themselves were not taxed on their income. And other than

subpart F, which applies mostly to passive income, the undistributed income of

those foreign corporations was not attributed to American shareholders for the

shareholders to be taxed.

“As part of the complicated transition to a more territorial system, the 2017 Act

imposed a one-time, backward-looking tax on that accumulated income. That

backward-looking tax is known as the Mandatory Repatriation Tax or MRT.

§965. Similar in structure to subpart F, the MRT attributed the long-accumulated

and undistributed income of American-controlled foreign corporations to

American shareholders, and then taxed those American shareholders on their pro

rata shares of that long-accumulated income at a rate from 8 to 15.5 percent.

§§965(a), (c), (d).”

Moore, 219 L Ed 2d at 285-86 (footnote omitted).

The issue in Moore was whether the requirement to add the Federal Repatriation Amount

to subpart F income was a “tax[ ] on incomes” allowed without apportionment among the states

under the Taxing Clause, the Direct Tax Clause, and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. See Moore, 219 L Ed 2d at 286; see generally US Const, Art I, § 9, cl 4

(“No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 9 of 62

Enumeration * * *.”); see also id., § 2, cl 3 (“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be

apportioned among the several States * * * according to their respective Numbers * * *.”); id.

Amend XVI (“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from

whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to

any census or enumeration.”). The taxpayers, American shareholders of a foreign corporation,

argued that the requirement did not constitute an “income” tax because, as to them, there had

been no “realization” of income when the Amount was merely deemed to have been distributed

to them without the transfer of any cash. Moore, 219 L Ed at 288 (“And the Moores contend that

the [requirement to include the Federal Repatriation Amount in subpart F income] does not tax

any income that they have realized.”); see generally Boris I. Bittker & Lawrence Lokken,

Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 5.2 (discussing concept of realization). The

Court rejected the taxpayers’ argument, concluding that it was unnecessary to decide whether a

realization event is a required component of an income tax, because the CFC had realized the

income in the course of its business before subpart F caused that income to be “attributed” to the

Moores:

“So the precise and narrow question that the Court addresses today is whether

Congress may attribute an entity’s realized and undistributed income to the

entity’s shareholders or partners, and then tax the shareholders or partners on their

portions of that income. This Court’s longstanding precedents, reflected in and

reinforced by Congress’s longstanding practice, establish that the answer is yes.”

Moore, 219 L Ed at 288 (footnote omitted); see also id. at 291 n 3 (“Because the MRT taxes

realized income--namely, income realized by the corporation and attributed to the shareholders--

we do not address the Government’s argument that a gain need not be realized to constitute

income under the Constitution.”).

More detailed explanation of the integration of the TCJA into the subpart F regime is

found in a leading treatise. Joel D. Kuntz & Robert J. Peroni, 1 US International Taxation ¶

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 10 of 62

B3.01 (March 2024). The United States generally taxes domestic US corporations on their

worldwide incomes, reducing the possibility of double taxation by allowing a credit for tax paid

to foreign countries. See id. at ¶ A1.03[1]. However, for tax years starting on or after January 1,

2018, the TCJA created a new deduction that departs significantly from this “worldwide” model

and tilts toward a “territorial” model in which federal taxable income is based more on domestic-

source income:

“Added in 2017 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Section 245A allows a deduction

to certain domestic corporations that own stock in certain foreign corporations.

The deduction is for the foreign-source portion of a dividend that the domestic

corporation receives from the foreign corporation. The intended effect of the

deduction, which when applicable covers 100 percent of the foreign-source

component, is the exemption of foreign earnings from U.S. taxation.”

Id. at B6.02A[1] (footnotes omitted). For the last tax year before the new deduction became

effective, substantial amendments to Section 965 created the one-time inclusion of the Federal

Repatriation Amount that is subject to apportionment in this case:

“In 2017, Congress completely revised Section 965 as part of major revisions to the U.S.

international tax system. Providing a counter-balance to the Section 245A deduction for

dividends received from certain foreign corporations, the amended version of Section 965

required, in a one-year transition period, that U.S. shareholders include in their gross

incomes certain amounts of income that such corporations had previously earned and

accumulated without payment of U.S. tax. To cushion the blow, low rates of tax were

imposed on those amounts, and the U.S. shareholders were given years to pay the tax.

“Roughly speaking, the combined effect was to tax the U.S. shareholders, at the favorable

rates, as if the tax-deferred earnings had been repatriated as dividends just prior to the

adoption of the new international tax regime. Thereafter, actual distributions of the same

earnings are not to be taxed.”

Id. at ¶ B3.04A[1] (footnote omitted). Congress framed the one-time inclusion of Federal

Repatriation Amounts as a temporary overlay on the existing system under Section 951. See IRC

§ 965(a) (Subpart F income, as otherwise determined, “shall be increased by” accumulated post-

1986 deferred foreign income). For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, Section 951

continues to require annual inclusion of subpart F deemed dividends, like those at issue in Oracle

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 11 of 62

II. See id. at ¶ A1.06[6] (“In the past, Section 951 has been the section that forces the U.S.

shareholders of controlled foreign corporations to include certain amounts in income. Section

951 continues in that role.”).

As a provision affecting federal gross and taxable income, the repatriation requirement

automatically was incorporated into Oregon law, but CFC shareholders that were themselves

corporations holding at least 20 percent of the stock of a CFC benefitted from Oregon’s

“dividends-received” subtraction, by which they subtracted 80 percent of the Federal

Repatriation Amount in computing Oregon taxable income. See ORS 317.010(7)(b), (8), (10)

(incorporating “taxable income,” under federal law as in effect for taxpayer’s tax year, as starting

point in computing “Oregon taxable income”); ORS 317.070 (imposing tax according to

“Oregon taxable income”); ORS 317.267(2)(b) (requiring subtraction, in computing Oregon

taxable income, for certain dividends received). Other transitional provisions, including the

TCJA rate reduction and the extended deadlines to pay, were not automatically incorporated and

thus did not apply for Oregon purposes. See, e.g., ORS 317.061 (setting rates without mention of

federal law).

III. ISSUES

A. Must a “deemed dividend” constituting the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount be

“reincluded” in the definition of “sales” under ORS 314.665(6)(a) if the deemed payor is

a CFC engaged in a unitary business with the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer’s primary

business activity is the same as that of the CFC?

B. Has Plaintiff carried its burden of proving that the assessment fails to “fairly represent the

extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state” or that the assessment produces

“unconstitutional results”?

IV. FACTS; TABLES SHOWING PARTIES’ COMPUTATIONS

Plaintiff is a Washington corporation with its primary place of business in Redmond,

Washington. (Stip Facts at 2, ¶ 1.) At relevant times, Plaintiff has operated on a fiscal year

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 12 of 62

ending June 30, which corresponds to its tax year for federal and Oregon income tax purposes.

(See id. at 3, ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff and its domestic and foreign subsidiaries (the Worldwide Group) have been, at

all relevant times, a unitary group conducting a unitary business that principally develops,

manufactures, markets, distributes, sells, licenses, and supports a wide range of software and

hardware products, devices, and services. (Id. at 2, ¶ 2.) Members of the group consisting of

Plaintiff and some or all of its domestic subsidiaries (the Water’s-Edge Group) own foreign

subsidiaries, including CFCs that license, manufacture, and distribute Microsoft-branded

products outside the United States. (Id. at 2, ¶ 3.)

Defendant does not assert that any addition to the numerator of the apportionment

fraction is necessary in this case. (See Statement of Darren Weirnick, Oral Argument, Apr 4,

2023, 2:08 (“The sales of the CFCs * * * those are sales in foreign jurisdictions * * * and I don’t

think there’s any dispute about that.”).)

As of TYE 2018, Plaintiff reported in its 10-K that the Worldwide Group employed

approximately 131,000 people on a full-time basis. Some 78,000 were in the United States

(including 155 in Oregon), and some 53,000 were outside the United States. (Id. at 2, ¶¶ 4-5.)

The reported domestic and foreign sales of the Worldwide Group were $55,926,000,000 in the

United States and $54,434,000,000 from other countries. (Id. at 2, ¶ 6.)

As of June 30, 2017, Plaintiff reported in its Form 10-K that $142,000,000,000 of foreign

earnings and profits of the foreign subsidiaries in the Worldwide Group were permanently

reinvested outside of the United States. (Id. at 2-3, ¶ 7.)

After the passage on December 22, 2017, of the TCJA, which among other things

amended IRC § 965, Defendant issued Oregon Revenue Bulletin 2018-01. (Id. at 3, ¶ 9.) The

Bulletin states in part: “[T]he [20 Percent Repatriation Amount] must be excluded from the sales

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 13 of 62

factor for tax years beginning before January 1, 2018, unless the repatriation gross receipts are

derived from the taxpayer’s primary business activity.” (Stip Ex 20 at 1.)

In May 2019, the Water’s-Edge Group timely filed consolidated federal and Oregon

returns for TYE 2018. (See Stip Facts at 2-4.)

• The federal return reported a Federal Repatriation Amount under IRC § 965(a) of

$159,380,563,499, which included current foreign earnings and profits and those

accumulated since the early 2000s. (See id. at 3, ¶ 11.)

• The Oregon return reported total taxable business income of $42,350,143,724, which

included a 20 Percent Repatriation Amount of $31,876,112,700, after applying the 80-

percent dividend received subtraction under ORS 317.267(2). (See id. at 3-4, ¶ 13.)

• Consistent with the Bulletin, the Oregon sales factor on the return (0.5318 percent) did

not include any receipts attributable to the Federal Repatriation Amount or other subpart

F income. (See id. at 4, ¶13.)

• The amount of Oregon tax shown on the return was $16,977,966; this was timely paid.

(See id. at 4, ¶ 13.)

On or about May 20, 2019, shortly after filing its original Oregon return, the Water’s-

Edge Group filed an amended return for TYE 2018 based on use of alternative apportionment

under ORS 314.667. (See id. at 4, ¶ 14.) The following “proforma amended return” table is an

excerpt from that filing:

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 14 of 62

Table 1. Amounts of Tax Paid and Refund Claimed on Amended Return

Amended

Assessment 10 Refund Claim 11 Amounts 12

Pre Apportioned $42,350,143,724 $42,350,143,724

Income

Apportionment 0.5318% (0.3432%) 0.1886%

Taxable Income $225,218,064 $79,884,823

Regular Tax $17,106,573 ($11,045,326) $6,061,247

Research Credit ($128,607) $128,607

Net Tax $16,977,966 ($11,045,326) $5,932,640

(Stip Ex 24 at 2.) The amended return thus claims a refund of $11,045,326, leaving an

undisputed Oregon tax amount of approximately $6 million.13 (See id.) In computing the refund

claim, Plaintiff added the Federal Repatriation Amount to the sales factor denominator. (See Stip

Ex 24 at 1 (“In our petition, we sought to include the foreign dividends in the sales factor.”).)

On June 1, 2020, Defendant issued a letter denying the request for refund, and Defendant

directed Plaintiff to “[c]onsider this document your Notice of Proposed Refund Adjustment.”

(Stip Ex 25 at 7.) Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff timely appealed to the Magistrate

Division. (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 9 (“Microsoft timely appealed the department’s

notice to the Magistrate Division.”).) The court specially designated the matter for hearing in the

Regular Division at the parties’ joint request, and Plaintiff thereafter filed its amended complaint,

which Defendant has answered.

Various other administrative proceedings have occurred with respect to TYE 2018,

including:

10

Labeled “Original Return” on Stip Ex 24.

11

Labeled “Difference” on Stip Ex 24.

12

Labeled “Corrected” on Stip Ex 24.

13

The court ignores Plaintiff’s claim for a research and development credit, as the parties have not

discussed that credit in briefing.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 15 of 62

• Plaintiff’s filing of a pre-return petition for alternative apportionment under ORS 314.667

in January 2019, which Defendant apparently treats as having been amended by the May

20, 2019 refund claim and denied in Defendant’s June 1, 2020, letter;

• Defendant’s post-return audit of TYE 2018 and other tax years that resulted in a

deficiency notice followed by conference proceedings, all culminating in relatively minor

adjustments, in November 2021, to the amount at issue for TYE 2018; and

• The filing, in December 2021, of a second amended Oregon return for TYE 2018 based

on amendments to the consolidated federal return.

(See Stip Facts at 3-7; Stip Ex 25 at 1 (June 1, 2020 letter from Defendant, referring to Plaintiff’s

“refund claim and amended request for alternative apportionment”)); (see also Def’s Cross-Mot

Summ J & Resp at 7 (referring to May 20, 2019, refund claim as “the superseding request for

alternative apportionment”).) The record suggests that at least some of these proceedings may

result in adjustments to the amounts shown on the original return and commensurate adjustments

to the amount of refund Plaintiff seeks under its legal theories and proposals for alternative

apportionment. See, e.g., footnotes to Tables 2 and 3, below. The court finds that any such

adjustments do not, however, raise a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary

judgment. The court will rule on the parties’ cross-motions and will direct the parties to seek

resolution of any computational issues, with further proceedings to follow if necessary.

For convenience, the court includes additional information regarding the amount of refund in

dispute under each of the positions advanced by Plaintiff to be discussed in this Order. At oral

argument the parties provided approximations of the amount of the refund that would be due if

the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount were included in the sales denominator. Plaintiff estimates

that the refund due under reinclusion would be approximately $5,400,000. (Statement of Robert

Mitchell, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, at 1:10.) Defendant estimates that the refund would be

approximately $4,600,000. (Statement of Darren Weirnick, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, at

1:44.) The difference between the parties appears to turn on resolution of computational issues

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 16 of 62

mentioned in the previous paragraph, which are not material to resolving the issues raised in the

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Table 2. Issue A: Parties’ Computations of Reduction to Refund Claim if 20 Percent

Repatriation Amount is Reincluded under ORS 314.665(6)(a)

Refund Claim Per Refund Due Remaining

Amended Return Under Reinclusion Refund

Sought

Plaintiff $11,045,326 14 $5,400,000 15 $5,645,326

16 17

Defendant $11,045,326 $4,600,000 $6,445,326

For comparison with the amounts of the assessment, the refund claim, and the refund due under

reinclusion, the following table shows the respective amounts Plaintiff argues would be due

under its three proposals for alternative apportionment.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

14

(Stip Ex 24 at 2.)

15

(Statement of Robert Mitchell, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, 1:10)

16

(Stip Ex 24 at 2.)

17

(Statement of Darren Weirnick, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, 1:44)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 17 of 62

Table 3. Issue B: Plaintiff’s Estimates of Refund Due Under Plaintiff’s Alternative

Apportionment Proposals 18

Proposal 1 19 Proposal 2 20 Proposal 3 21

Include 20% of CFC Sales Include 100% of Federal Separate Accounting

in Denominator Repatriation Amount in

Denominator

Amount Added to

Denominator $106,892,100,683 $157,052,683,170 N/A

Apportionment

Percentage

(0.4924% in

Assessment) 0.2313% 0.1852% N/A

Refund Due $9,670,618 $11,242,112 $13,268,040

V. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s First Theory: Reinclusion of Deemed Dividends Under ORS 314.665(6)(a)

Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to a portion of the refund it seeks as a matter of statutory

construction, not depending on any alleged unfairness or unconstitutionality. Plaintiff’s position

is that the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount should be reincluded in the denominator of the

Oregon sales factor under ORS 314.665(6)(a) as construed in Oracle II. Defendant argues that

the portion of Oracle II on which Plaintiff relies was wrongly decided, and that the Federal

Repatriation Amount was derived from holding stock in the CFCs, not from the primary business

18

Defendant has not provided a calculation of the refund due under proposal 1 but has noted a dispute with

Plaintiff’s calculation. (Statement of Darren Weirnick, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, 1:46). Under proposal 2,

Defendant calculates that Plaintiff would be due a refund of $10,961,160. (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp App C

at 78). Under proposal 3, Defendant calculates Plaintiff’s refund would be $12,846,530. (Id.).

Defendant identifies three independent reasons for the discrepancies between Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s

refund estimates, which apply regardless of the apportionment methodology: “First, Microsoft’s sales denominator

is incorrect and inconsistent with the parties’ stipulation. * * * Second, Microsoft’s computation of Oregon tax

before credits under each of its proposed alternative methods applies the 7.6-percent tax rate to the Water’s Edge

Group’s entire Oregon taxable income, which fails to take into account that the 6.6-percent tax bracket applies to the

first $1M of Oregon taxable income. * * * Third * * * Microsoft’s computations neglect to take into account that as

a result of the conference decision for TYE 2018 issued in 2021, the department adjusted Microsoft’s corporation

excise tax for TYE 2018 downwards, as shown in a corrected notice of adjustment of $121,247 for that year.”

(Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp App C at 76).

19

(Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J App B at 33-34.)

20

(Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 24-25.)

21

(Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 26.)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 18 of 62

activity of Plaintiff or the Water’s-Edge Group. 22 (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 16-21.)

The court restates and further explains its reasoning in Oracle II and concludes that Plaintiff

prevails on its first theory.

The text of ORS 314.665(6) is the same text that applied to the tax years at issue in

Oracle II: 23

“(6) For purposes of this section, ‘sales’:

“(a) Excludes gross receipts arising from the sale, exchange, redemption or

holding of intangible assets, including but not limited to securities, unless those

receipts are derived from the taxpayer’s primary business activity.

“(b) Includes net gain from the sale, exchange or redemption of intangible assets

not derived from the primary business activity of the taxpayer but included in the

taxpayer’s business income.

“(c) Excludes gross receipts arising from an incidental or occasional sale of a

fixed asset or assets used in the regular course of the taxpayer’s trade or business

if a substantial amount of the gross receipts of the taxpayer arise from an

incidental or occasional sale or sales of fixed assets used in the regular course of

the taxpayer’s trade or business. Insubstantial amounts of gross receipts arising

from incidental or occasional transactions or activities may be excluded from the

sales factor unless the exclusion would materially affect the amount of income

apportioned to this state.”

(Emphasis added.) Based on the text and context of subsection (a) of ORS 314.665, this court in

Oracle II held that deemed dividends under subpart F are eligible to be treated as “derived from

the taxpayer’s primary business activity” if the taxpayer is a water’s- edge group that is engaged

in a single unitary business with its CFCs. Oracle II, 24 OTR at 386-95 & n 32.

22

Defendant also argues that Oracle II is not precedential because the plaintiff in that case dismissed its

appeal after the court’s order on partial summary judgment but before all issues had been decided. (Def’s Cross-

Mot Summ J & Resp at 17 n 18 (citing State v. Cigtec Tobacco, LLC, 200 Or App 501, 504, 115 P3d 978 (2005).)

The court in this case does not rely on Oracle II as precedent but refers to it only for its persuasive value.

23

Oracle II involved tax years ending May 31, 2010, 2011, and 2012. See Oracle II, 24 OTR at 360 & n 3

(citing 2009 edition of ORS). The 2017 legislature substantially changed Oregon’s apportionment laws, generally

replacing the sourcing provisions for sales other than sales of tangible personal property and adopting a market-

based approach. In the process, the legislature eliminated ORS 314.665(6). However, those changes applied to tax

years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and thus do not apply to TYE 2018. See Or Laws 2017 ch 43, §§ 5, 12;

Or Laws 2017 ch 549, §§ 3, 5; Or Laws 2017 ch 622, §§ 3, 5.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 19 of 62

1. Comparison with Tektronix

Defendant argues in this case that the reasoning in Oracle II conflicts with that of the

Supreme Court in Tektronix, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 354 Or 531, 316 P3d 276 (2013).

(Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 15-16). According to Defendant, CFC income is “derived

from” the holding of CFC stock, which is not the taxpayer’s primary business activity. (Id. at

15). The court finds Tektronix distinguishable.

In Tektronix, the taxpayer, an electronics manufacturer, sold assets constituting its printer

division to Xerox Corporation, and a sizeable portion of the sale price was attributable to

“goodwill.” See Tektronix, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 20 OTR 468, 469 (2012), aff’d on other

grounds 354 Or 531, 316 P3d 276 (2013). The taxpayer took the position that the gain was

excluded from “sales” because it “ar[ose] from the sale * * * of intangible assets” under

ORS 314.665(6)(a). 24 See 354 Or at 542. Defendant assessed a deficiency, contending that that

portion must be reincluded because the goodwill

“was developed by [taxpayer] over many years, in the operation of its Color

Printing Division. * * * [T]he Color Printing Division was central to [taxpayer’s]

primary business of manufacturing and distributing electronics products.”

Id. at 547 (internal quotations omitted). In response, the taxpayer

“contend[ed] that, because it did not receive the $590 million from the

manufacture and sale of electronics equipment, the $590 million did not ‘derive[ ]

from the taxpayer’s primary business activity.’”

Id. The Supreme Court squarely agreed with the taxpayer, rejecting Defendant’s position

because Defendant had

“represented to the Tax Court that taxpayer’s ‘primary business’ was

‘manufacturing and distributing electronics products.’ The sale at issue here was

not the sale of such products, but the sale of an entire division of taxpayer’s

business. The department did not adduce any evidence that taxpayer’s primary

24

The positions of the parties in Tektronix were the reverse of those in this case. Presumably, the taxpayer

in Tektronix sought to exclude the gain from the definition of “sales” because some or all of the gain would have

been sourced to Oregon and included in the numerator of the sales factor.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 20 of 62

business was engaging in the sale of its divisions, and there is no basis for

concluding otherwise.”

Id. at 547-48.

In contrast to the gain in Tektronix from the “sale of an entire division,” in this case most

if not all of the Federal Repatriation Amount demonstrably consists of earnings and profits the

CFCs earned by working together with the Water’s-Edge Group to sell the same goods and

services normally sold in Plaintiff’s software business. See IRC § 965(a) (Federal Repatriation

Amount consists of “accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income” of CFC); IRC § 965(d)(2)

(defining “accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income” as “CFC’s post-1986 earnings and

profits,” with exceptions). “Earnings and profits” is a term of art in federal income tax law, but

its starting point is taxable income. See Boris I. Bittker & Lawrence Lokken, Federal Taxation

of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 92.1.3. (“Earnings and profits are usually computed starting from

taxable income.”). There is no dispute that “many of the CFCs in turn engaged in similar

‘primary’ business activities abroad as the Water’s-Edge Group engaged in domestically.”

(Def’s Reply at 3.) And the sales activities of the Water’s-Edge Group and the CFCs were not

only of the same type, they were part of the same business. The Water’s-Edge Group and the

CFCs were actively engaged together in the same single, “unitary business” that generated those

earnings and profits. (See Stip Facts ¶ 2.) By definition, there was a “sharing or exchange of

value” among all of the corporations in the Worldwide Group, as demonstrated by “centralized

management,” “centralized administrative services” resulting in “economies of scale,” or a flow

of goods or other resources demonstrating “functional integration.” See ORS 317.705(3) (1993)

(definition of “unitary business”). The only reason those earnings and profits had not already

been included in the federal taxable income of the Water’s-Edge Group before TYE 2018 was

that Congress had not yet required the amounts to be added to subpart F income, and the

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 21 of 62

directors of the CFCs (presumably elected by members of the Water’s-Edge Group) had not

chosen to pay out the amounts as dividends.

The goodwill in Tektronix was a step removed from earnings and profits from sales to

customers in the course of the unitary business. This is apparent from the way the two amounts

are determined. The Federal Repatriation Amount was determined by adding up many years’

worth of undistributed earnings and profits from selling software and services to customers, then

attributing that accumulated amount to the Water’s-Edge Group. By contrast, the amount of the

gross receipts at issue in Tektronix was determined solely by whatever Xerox Corporation was

willing to pay for an entire package of assets comprising the printer division as a whole. The

amount assigned to goodwill in that transaction was residual: the “amount paid by [Xerox] in

excess of the aggregate fair market value of other assets purchased.” 20 OTR at 504 (citing

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary at 979 (2002) (defining “goodwill” as “the excess

of the purchase price of a business over and above the value assigned to its net assets exclusive

of goodwill”). The amount paid for goodwill, therefore, determined by the circumstances of the

one-off sale of Tektronix’s printer division, did not necessarily bear any relationship to the

amount of prior earnings or profits from engaging in the unitary business.

The distinction in this case, then, is that there is no intervening activity, such as the sale

in Tektronix, that separates the business activities of the CFCs that generated the earnings and

profits that became the Federal Repatriation Amount from the business activities of the Water’s-

Edge Group. 25 The court sees nothing in Tektronix that changes the reasoning in Oracle II.

2. Reasoning of Oracle II

25

This is literally true in this particular case, as in Oracle II, because subpart F caused the income to be

included by operation of law without even the declaration of a dividend.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 22 of 62

The court briefly expands on its interpretation of “primary business activity” in Oracle II,

applying the framework of State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171, 206 P 3d 1042 (2009):

• Text. The reinclusion clause “does not say that the amount must be reincluded if

the sale, exchange, redemption or holding of the intangibles constitutes the

taxpayer’s primary business activity.” Oracle II, 24 OTR at 394 (emphases in

original). Instead, the text leaves open the possibility that gross receipts may be

derived from the taxpayer’s primary business activity, regardless of whether they

arise from the sale, exchange, redemption or holding of intangible assets.

• Context.

o Administrative rule on “income producing activity.” As of 1995, a

longstanding rule of Defendant declared: “The mere holding of intangible

personal property is not, of itself, an income producing activity.” OAR

150-314.665(3)(2) (1994); see Oracle II, 24 OTR at 391-94. The purpose

of the rule was relevant: to “determine[ ] whether dividends and other

receipts from intangibles or services are assigned to the numerator of the

sales factor and thus increase the percentage of income that Oregon may

tax.” Oracle II, 24 OTR at 392 (referring to ORS 314.665(4) (1993)).

The legislature is deemed to have been aware of this rule, and that

awareness makes it less likely that the legislature intended “primary

business activity” to include the holding of stock and the receipt of

dividends (actual or deemed). See First EUB Church v. Commission, 1

OTR 249, 260-61 (1963). 26

26

Defendant argues that another portion of OAR 150-314-0435, renumbered from OAR 150-314.665 in

2016, prohibits inclusion of the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount in the denominator independently of the

reinclusion provision in ORS 314.665(6)(a). (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 19-20.) In considering this

argument, the court first notes that the rule was the subject of considerable analysis in AT&T Corp. v. Dept. of

Rev., 357 Or 691, 358 P3d 973 (2015). However, in that case the rule was incorporated as a rule under

ORS 314.280, which expressly delegates broad rulemaking authority to Defendant for the apportionment and

allocation of income of a “public utility,” including one engaged in “the transmission of communications.” See

id. at 702 & nn 7-9 (referring to former OAR 150-314.665). No such express delegation applies to the rule as

applied to non-public utilities that are subject to UDITPA, including Plaintiff in this case. Nonetheless, in this

case as in AT&T, neither party contests the validity of the rule; therefore, the court construes it as guidance. See

AT&T at 709-10 (“Neither party asserts that the department’s rule is invalid or inconsistent with

ORS 314.665(4). Accordingly, we now turn to that rule for guidance.”).

Defendant relies mainly on a sourcing provision and example in OAR 150-314-0435(3)(b) (emphases

added):

“(b) Where business income from intangible property cannot readily be attributed to any particular income

producing activity of the taxpayer, the income cannot be assigned to the numerator of the sales factor for

any state and must be excluded from the denominator of the sales factor. For example, where business

income in the form of dividends received on stock, royalties received on patents or copyrights, or interest

received on bonds, debentures or government securities results from the mere holding of the intangible

personal property by the taxpayer, the dividends and interest must be excluded from the denominator of the

sales factor.”

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 23 of 62

Defendant seems to make two arguments under the rule; the court disagrees with each one. First, one of the

rule provisions that Defendant highlights in its briefing is the example in the second sentence quoted above.

(See Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 19.) But to the extent that Defendant reads the example to require exclusion

per se of dividends that are business income, Defendant’s reading is incorrect. The example requires per se

exclusion only for business-income dividends that “result[ ] from the mere holding” of the stock. A parent

company and its domestic affiliates that are engaged in a single unitary business with foreign subsidiaries that

are CFCs do not “mere[ly] hold[ ]” the CFC stock. Instead, by definition, the domestic parent centrally and

actively manages the business through its domestic and foreign subsidiaries as one functionally integrated

enterprise. See ORS 317.705(3) (defining unitary business). Because actual and deemed dividends from

unitary CFCs are not automatically excluded from the denominator, they are sourced based on the location of

the greater proportion of the costs of performing the income-producing activities that “give[ ] rise to the

particular item of income.” OAR 150-314-0435(4). This inquiry is factual, and the rule requires the dividends

to be excluded only if the income-producing activity that causes them cannot readily be identified.

This brings us to Defendant’s second argument: that the 20 Percent Deemed Repatriation Amount cannot

readily be attributed to a particular income-producing activity of the Water’s-Edge Group. (See Def’s Cross-

Mot Summ J at 19-20.) The problem with this argument is that Defendant has not made a prima facie case. For

starters, Defendant has not attempted to identify the kinds of activities that “give rise” to a dividend that is not

only business income but business income from a unitary subsidiary. Citing Tektronix, Defendant provides

only the conclusory statement that “[t]he deemed distribution of the accumulated of earnings and profits of

CFCs, particularly over nearly two decades is, like goodwill, the product of many activities over many years,

unlike the provision of a particular service to a customer.” (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 19.) The court

believes that even the “readily * * * attributed” standard in the rule requires a deeper inquiry. For example,

cogent arguments could be made that the court should focus on one or both of the following:

• Activities of the Water’s-Edge Group as shareholders, affecting whether or when the CFCs would pay

dividends, or be deemed to pay them. For example, as majority shareholders of the CFCs, members of the

Water’s-Edge Group, acting through employees or board members whose compensation costs were borne

by the Water’s-Edge Group, could have used their voting power to control or influence decisions of the

CFCs to either declare actual dividends that would be immediately subject to United States federal and

state tax in tax years before the TCJA, or to refrain from declaring dividends such that earnings and profits

would build up and be included in the Deemed Repatriation Amount. A focus on this first type of activity

would harmonize the rule’s requirement that the income-producing activity “give rise” to the dividend or

deemed dividend with the court’s reasoning in Oracle II that gross receipts under Section 965 “arise from”

dividends or deemed dividends. See Oracle II, 24 OTR at 386-88; Tektronix, 354 Or 531.

• The second alternative type of activity consists of the activities of the Water’s-Edge Group that assisted in

generating the CFCs’ earnings and profits. Defendant argues that “[o]ne may not conflate the activity of

the CFCs with the activity of the taxpayer, the Water’s-Edge Group, under ORS 314.665(4).” (Def’s Cross-

Mot Summ J at 20.) That statement is true in the abstract, but it again ignores the fact that the Water’s-

Edge Group and the CFCs were engaged together in the same “unitary business,” which necessarily means

that their activities were centralized and integrated. See ORS 317.705(3) (defining unitary business). For

example, supervision of enterprise-wide business functions such as developing or updating products,

branding, and marketing might be readily identifiable, and the associated costs of performance might be

traceable and attributable to particular locations.

The record before the court does not make a prima facie showing that activities of either type cannot be

readily identified, or that the court should consider some other type of activity. What the record does show is

that 45,276 of Plaintiff’s full-time-equivalent employees in TYE 2018 were located in the state of Washington,

compared to 78,000 in the United States and 131,000 worldwide. (Def’s Decl of Kelley at 1, ¶ 2; Stip Facts at

2, ¶ 4.) Washington also was the state of Plaintiff’s primary place of business (Stip Facts at 2, ¶ 1) and of its

commercial domicile (Ptf’s Mot Summ J at 2; Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 2.) Defendant itself, in its briefing

on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, seems to assume that, whatever the relevant activities were, they

happened in Washington. (See Def’s Resp Recons at 3 (“if the income-producing activity that produced the 20

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 24 of 62

o Mobil. Some 15 years before the 1995 legislative session, the United

States Supreme Court relied on the unitary nature of a business conducted

by a domestic parent corporation and its overseas subsidiaries in allowing

Vermont to tax an apportioned share of dividends from those subsidiaries.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 US 425, 100 S Ct 1223, 63

L Ed 2d 510 (1980). At the time, Vermont law did not allow the parent

corporation to file a combined report or a consolidated return with its

subsidiaries; therefore, dividends to the parent were not “eliminated” as

intercompany transactions. See Mobil, 445 US at 441 n 15. The taxpayer

sought to treat the dividends as nonapportionable nonbusiness income

allocated outside Vermont. See Mobil, 445 US at 430. However, the

Court held that the dividends were business income to the extent received

from affiliates engaged in a unitary business with the taxpayer:

“So long as dividends from subsidiaries and affiliates reflect

profits derived from a functionally integrated enterprise, those

dividends are income to the parent earned in a unitary business.

One must look principally at the underlying activity, not the form

of investment, to determine the propriety of apportionability.

“Superficially, intercorporate division might appear to be a more

attractive basis for limiting apportionability. But the form of

business organization may have nothing to do with the underlying

unity or diversity of business enterprise. Had appellant chosen to

operate its foreign subsidiaries as separate divisions of a legally as

well as a functionally integrated enterprise, there is little doubt that

the income derived from those divisions would meet due process

requirements for apportionability.”

Id. at 440-41. The Oregon Legislature would have understood from Mobil that it

is the “underlying activity” that determines whether dividends are apportionable

Percent Repatriation [Amount] is the activity of a member of the affiliated group in some water’s-edge

jurisdiction, that activity would be attributed to only one state--here, the headquarters state from which

Microsoft oversees or manages the CFCs.”).) Thus, without opining on the level of deference to be afforded to

the rule as applied to a UDITPA taxpayer, or on the overall validity of the “throw-out” provision in the rule, the

court rejects Defendant’s argument that application of the rule to the facts of this case requires the 20 Percent

Repatriation Amount to be excluded from the denominator.

Separately from the rule, Defendant contends that including the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount in the

sales factor denominator is inherently unconstitutionally distortive if the entire 20 Percent Repatriation Amount

is then included in the numerator for any one state. (See, e.g., Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J at 23-24 (“the sudden

recognition in the sales factor in a single year of decades of deferred earnings and profits would not be

representative of the taxpayer’s ordinary business activity in TYE 2018 * * * .”).) The court rejects this

contention, again because the great majority of Water’s-Edge Group employees were located in Washington

and because the nature of those employees’ work apparently was such that Plaintiff’s “commercial domicile”

was in Washington. On that record, the court cannot rule that sourcing the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount to

Washington inherently fails to “actually reflect a reasonable sense of how [the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount]

is generated.” Container Corp., 463 US at 169.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 25 of 62

at all, and that when the parent and subsidiary share the same activities because

they engage together in the same unitary business, the dividends are

apportionable. 27 The court sees no reason why the legislature would have

deviated from that understanding when it used the term “primary business

activity” to determine whether dividends from a unitary subsidiary are reincluded

as gross receipts. 28

• Legislative history. As the Supreme Court explained in Tektronix, the legislature

adopted ORS 314.665(6)(a) as a “broader solution” to the relatively discrete

“‘treasury function’ problem,” referring to the sourcing of gross receipts from

stock or other intangibles that are “short-term liquid assets that a corporation

use[s] to store cash for business purposes.” Tektronix, 354 Or at 545. Subpart F

income plainly is not part of the treasury function problem, because there is no

evidence that Plaintiff held the CFCs as short-term vessels to store cash. But

there also is no discussion in the legislative history to suggest that subpart F

income is within the scope of the broader solution.

27

The court expresses no view as to whether it would reach the same conclusion if Plaintiff and the CFCs

were not engaged in a single unitary business. The court also takes this opportunity to correct a mislabeling in

Oracle II: scholars sometimes describe entities engaged together in a single unitary business as having “enterprise

unity.” See, e.g., Jerome R. Hellerstein & Walter Hellerstein, State Taxation: Third Edition ¶ 8.08[2][b][i] 6-7 (Jul

2024). In Oracle II, the court incorrectly described that kind of relationship (present in Mobil, in Oracle II, and in

this case) as “asset unity.” Oracle II, 24 OTR at 395 n 38; see Comcast; Hellerstein et al., State Taxation at ¶ 8.08.

28

Defendant argues that this conclusion “would disregard the separate personhood of the foreign

corporations and the legislature’s deliberate decision in the 1984 special session to end Oregon’s use of worldwide

combined reporting effective in 1986 and to move to a water’s-edge method based on the federal consolidated return

filed by domestic corporations included in a federal affiliated group.” (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 14-15.)

The court disagrees with both points.

First, simply acknowledging the fact that Water’s Edge Group members, as majority shareholders of the

CFCs, no doubt can often influence the CFCs’ directors they appoint to declare dividends, or to refrain from doing

so in a manner that causes CFC earnings and profits to build up over time without taxation, does not disregard the

separate existence of the CFCs. See Moline Prop., Inc., v. Com’r of Internal Rev., 319 US 436, 439, 63 S Ct 1132,

87 L Ed 1499 (1943) (stating “* * * so long as th[e] purpose is the equivalent of business activity or is followed by

the carrying on of business by the corporation, the corporation remains a separate taxable entity”).

Second, the line drawn by the 1984 legislature is analogous to that in Mobil: both Oregon’s water’s-edge

system and Vermont’s separate-return system require dividends to be recognized as income, rather than eliminated

as intercompany items. Yet in determining how to treat such dividends for apportionment purposes, the court in

Mobil looked beyond Vermont’s line to the unitary nature of the business conducted by affiliates on both sides of the

line. Moreover, the Court’s recent decision in Moore similarly reaches beyond the domestic-foreign divide by

concluding that a CFC’s realization of income in the course of the CFC’s business suffices to satisfy any

requirement that income be “realized” in order for the inclusion of the Federal Repatriation Amount in subpart F

income to survive scrutiny as an “income” tax under the Taxing Clause, the Direct Tax Clause, and the Sixteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Moore, 219 L Ed 2d at 288 (inclusion of Federal Repatriation

Amount in subpart F “does tax realized income--namely, income realized by the [CFC].”) (emphasis in original); id.

at 291 n 3 (“The Government argues that a gain does not need to be realized to constitute income under the

Constitution. * * * Because the [inclusion of the Federal Repatriation Amount as subpart F income] taxes realized

income--namely, income realized by the corporation and attributed to the shareholders--we do not address the

Government’s argument that a gain need not be realized to constitute income under the Constitution.”).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 26 of 62

As in Oracle II, the court concludes that, in the case of a multicorporate unitary business,

the 1995 Oregon Legislative Assembly (“legislature”) intended “primary business activity” to be

determined by reference to “underlying activities” (in this case, developing, manufacturing,

marketing, distributing, selling, licensing, and supporting a wide range of software and hardware

products, devices, and services), not to “[s]uperficial[ ]” activities related only to “intercorporate

division,” such as forming subsidiaries and holding their stock. (Stip Facts at ¶ 2.) Mobil, 445

US at 440. Therefore, Plaintiff prevails as to its first theory, to the following extent:

“The two things that must be compared under the reinclusion provision are,

therefore, (1) the primary business activity of the subsidiary that generated the

earnings and profits * * * to which any subpart F income is attributable * * * and

(2) the primary business activity of the parent. If these are the same, then the

dividend must be reincluded in the definition of ‘sales’ because the * * * subpart

F income * * * is ‘derived from’ the taxpayer parent’s ‘primary business

activity.’”

Oracle II, 24 OTR at 395. 29

B. Plaintiff’s Second Theory: Factor Representation

The court’s conclusion in Plaintiff’s favor on the reinclusion issue does not result in a

refund of the full amount Plaintiff claims. See Table 2, Part IV, above. As its second theory,

Plaintiff argues that, regardless of whether it prevails under its first theory, it is entitled to deviate

from Oregon’s statutory apportionment formula under the “safety valve” statute in Oregon’s

UDITPA (ORS 314.667). (Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 10 (“If DOR is wrong, and

29

Defendant “does not dispute that most of the CFCs appear to have been principally engaged in some

aspect of developing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling, licensing, or supporting software and hardware

products, devices, and services and that a substantial portion of those CFCs’ own earnings and profits were from

such activities.” (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 14 n 15.) However, Defendant points to evidence that “some

CFCs clearly engaged primarily in classic treasury management or investment trading activities, which the 1995

legislature plainly intended to exclude from ‘sales’ under ORS 314.665(6)(a).” (Id.) Plaintiff appears to contest the

latter point. (See Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 17.) Based on the wording of Defendant’s argument,

including its characterization of the issue as a “computational matter,” the court will allow the parties to seek to

resolve this point in proceedings following this order; if they are unable to do so, the court will treat its order as one

for partial summary judgment. (Id.) See TCR 47 C.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 27 of 62

the statute is read to authorize representation of the deemed dividend in the sales factor, the

constitutional issues that this case raises can be ameliorated (though not fully resolved).”)

(emphasis added).) 30 Commenters and practitioners commonly refer to Plaintiff’s position as a

request for “factor representation” or “factor relief,” which relies on a principle of correlation:

that an addition of income to the tax base should be accompanied by additions to the

denominator of the apportionment fraction. See generally Hellerstein et al., State Taxation at ¶

9.15[2] (“In short, a state should not be able to have it both ways: including income of

subsidiaries in the parent’s apportionable tax base on the theory that the parent and the subsidiary

are engaged in a unitary business but then apportioning such income by factors reflecting only

the parent's own operations on a separate-company basis.”); see generally, id. at 9.20[8][i]

(discussing statutory factor representation cases); id. at 9.15[2][a] (specifically discussing

inclusion of unitary subsidiary’s factors when apportioning parent’s dividend income).

Relief is available under ORS 314.667 for either of two reasons. First, the statute

expressly may be invoked when the formula in UDITPA does not “fairly represent” the extent of

the taxpayer’s business activity in Oregon. ORS 314.667(1). Alternatively, the statute has been

construed as a mechanism “to remedy unconstitutional results.” Twentieth Century-Fox v. Dept.

of Revenue, 299 Or 220, 228, 700 P2d 1035 (1985). Applying Oregon’s first-things-first

doctrine, the court begins with Plaintiff’s argument under the statutory “fairly represent”

standard. 31 See Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or 611, 614, 625 P2d 123 (1981) (“The proper sequence is

30

As Plaintiff explained at oral argument, the reinclusion clause increases the sales factor denominator only

by the amount of the CFCs’ deferred earnings and profits, which are calculated net of the CFCs’ expenses; the

CFCs’ sales are their gross receipts. (Statement of Robert Mitchell, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, 1:09; see also

Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 4.)

31

Plaintiff implies that relief also requires that the case be “unusual,” even though nothing in the statute

expressly says so. (See, e.g., Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 25; Ptf’s Memo Mot Summ J at 19-20

(quoting Twentieth Century-Fox, 299 Or at 228 (statute applies “in unusual cases” where UDITPA formula does not

fairly represent taxpayer’s business activity).) This court reads Twentieth Century-Fox, as well as statements of the

UDITPA framers when taken in their greater context, as expressing an expectation that the standard formulas under

UDITPA will likely yield a fair result in most cases, not as prescribing an additional element of “unusualness” that is

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 28 of 62

to analyze the state’s law, including its constitutional law, before reaching a federal

constitutional claim.”).

1. Relief Under Statutory “Fairly Represent” Standard

The relevant portion of the “safety valve” statute is materially the same as when the

legislature enacted it in 1965 as part of UDITPA:

“(1) If the application of the allocation and apportionment provisions of ORS 314.605 to

314.675 do not fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this state,

the taxpayer may petition for and the Department of Revenue may permit, or the

department may require, in respect to all or any part of the taxpayer’s business activity:

“(a) Separate accounting;

“(b) The exclusion of any one or more of the factors;

“(c) The inclusion of one or more additional factors which will fairly represent the

taxpayer’s business activity in this state; or

“(d) The employment of any other method to effectuate an equitable allocation and

apportionment of the taxpayer’s income.

“(2) The department may adopt rules to promote uniformity and consistency with other

states in the application of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act.”

either necessary or sufficient to obtain relief under a “safety valve” statute. See Twentieth Century-Fox, 299 Or at

224 (three-factor apportionment “typically” produces fair taxation although it is not “100 percent accurate for each

taxpayer or taxing jurisdiction"), see, e.g., William J. Pierce, The Uniform Division of Income for State Tax

Purposes,” 35 Taxes 747, 780-81 (Oct 1957) (“This section necessarily must be used where the statute reaches

arbitrary or unreasonable results so that its application could be attacked successfully on constitutional grounds.

Furthermore, it gives both the tax collection agency and the taxpayer some latitude for showing that for the

particular business activity, some more equitable method of allocation and apportionment could be achieved. Of

course, departures from the basic formula should be avoided except where reasonableness requires. Nonetheless,

some alternative method must be available to handle the constitutional problem as well as the unusual cases,

because no statutory pattern could ever resolve satisfactorily the problems for the multitude of taxpayers with

individual business characteristics.”) (emphasis added). Defendant’s administrative rules, in accordance with

regulations of the Multistate Tax Commission, previously included an “unusual case” requirement, but these

requirements were removed in 1999 and 2010, respectively. See OAR 150-314.670 (1997) (“ORS 314.670 may be

invoked only where unusual fact situations (which ordinarily will be unique and nonrecurring) produce results which

violate a taxpayer’s rights under the constitution of Oregon or of the United States.”); note, OAR 150-314.670

(1999) (“Repealed 12/31/99”); Hellerstein et al, State Taxation at ¶9.20[4][c] (“In 2010, the MTC revised this

regulation to eliminate the [unusual case] language[.]”). The court is satisfied that there is no requirement to find an

“unusual case” before applying ORS 314.667. Accordingly, Plaintiff is neither helped nor harmed by the undisputed

fact that the TCJA’s requirement to repatriate up to 31 years’ worth of deferred CFC earnings and profits was a one-

time event that marked a substantial shift in US international tax policy. That law change was an unusual event, but

that fact does not help to resolve whether Oregon’s statutory apportionment system fails to “fairly represent” the

extent of the Water’s Edge Group’s business activity in Oregon or produces unconstitutional results.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 29 of 62

ORS 314.667. 32

a. Twentieth Century-Fox and later cases

As the party advocating for an alternative apportionment method under ORS 314.667,

Plaintiff must prove two things. See Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 263 Or 26, 32, 500

P2d 1041 (1972) (“[T]he * ** party--the taxpayer or the Department of Revenue--who seeks to

invoke the applicability of ORS [314.667] has the burden of proof.”). First, “that the statutory

formula as a whole does not ‘fairly represent the extent of the taxpayer’s business activity in this

state.’” Twentieth Century-Fox, 299 Or at 233 (quoting what is now ORS 314.667(1)). Second,

that “the alternative method of allocating income is ‘reasonable.’” Id.

The court in Twentieth Century-Fox did not define the boundaries of the “fairly

represent” requirement in the abstract, except to state that the standard is not identical with

constitutional standards. See id. at 228. However, the steps the court took are instructive.

• First, the court sought to accurately define the taxpayer’s business activity in

Oregon as “the licensing of motion pictures” for exhibition by independent

theaters (Defendant’s position), as opposed to the distribution of copies of prints

made from negatives stored in California (the taxpayer’s position):

“It would be inaccurate to describe taxpayer’s business activity as

distributing reels of prints without reference to the negatives from which

they are made. Without the negative, the distribution prints could not be

made. The business activity of taxpayer in Oregon is the distribution for

display of the embodiment of a story or theme, photographed, edited,

acted and captured on film.”

Id. at 222, 234 (emphasis added).

32

See Or Laws 1965, ch 152, § 19; Or Laws 1984, ch 1, § 17 (Special Session) (adding requirement of

constitutional violation as condition to petition right); Or Laws 1999, ch 144, § 9 (deleting text added in 1984 and

adding rulemaking authority in subsection (2)). Twentieth Century-Fox involved pre-1984 tax years and thus text

materially identical to ORS 314.667(1). See 299 Or at 222 (tax years 1975-77).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 30 of 62

• Second, the court examined whether the property factor under the standard

formula matched this broad definition of the activity. 33 The court found a flaw:

by valuing only the tangible personal property that physically entered Oregon, the

formula created “an artificial distinction between prints and negatives.” Id. at

237. Based on the parties’ stipulations, admitted allegations, and uncontested

testimony, the value of the reels of prints that the taxpayer distributed ($800 to

$1,000 per reel) was “woefully inadequate” as a means to capture the full extent

of the taxpayer’s business activity because the entire, multi-million-dollar cost to

produce the motion picture was assigned to the negatives, which never left the

state of production and thus could not be included in the property factor

numerator. Id. at 234 n 8 (sources of evidence); id. at 236 (inadequacy of

standard property factor).

After its in-depth comparison of the taxpayer’s actual activities to the kinds of activities

captured by the apportionment factors, the court went on to uphold as “reasonable” Defendant’s

proffered alternative apportionment method. This alternative method redefined the numerator of

the property factor to have two values, not one: (1) the total value of the taxpayer’s films in

release, multiplied by (2) the ratio of Oregon receipts to total receipts. The alternative method

made no change to the denominator (real and tangible personal property everywhere). Id. at 236.

The court announced the following test:

“[I]n the context of UDITPA, reasonableness has at least three components: (1)

the division of income fairly represents business activity and if applied uniformly

would result in taxation of no more or no less than 100 percent of taxpayer’s

income; (2) the division of income does not create or foster lack of uniformity

among UDITPA jurisdictions; and (3) the division of income reflects the

economic reality of the business activity engaged in by the taxpayer in Oregon.”

Id. at 233-34 (emphasis in original). On the facts of the case, there was substantial overlap

between the “fairly represents” part of component (1) and the “economic reality” requirement of

33

The court focused on the property factor because the evidence showed that the payroll factor was zero

and the sales factor was accurate; therefore, any inaccuracy could reside only in the property factor. Id. at 234-35.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 31 of 62

component (3). 34 By applying the alternative formula, the court concluded that the taxpayer

owed approximately $22,000 more in tax than under the standard formula. Id. at 225 n 3. 35

i. Crocker Equipment Leasing and Pacific Coca-Cola

Similarly to Twentieth Century-Fox, the court allowed alternative apportionment in

Crocker Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 314 Or 122, 838 P2d 552 (1992). 36

Notwithstanding the taxpayer’s name, it was a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank with which it

was engaged in a unitary “financial organization” business. See id. at 124-25, 128. The

taxpayer showed that some 97 percent to 98 percent of its income-producing assets were

intangibles, such as loans and equipment leases that represented “an alternative form of

financing.” Id. at 129 & n 4. However, the standard UDITPA formula, which was incorporated

into the administrative rule governing financial organizations, included only real or tangible

personal property in the property factor. Applying the equally weighted three-factor

34

The court treated the two parts of component (1) separately, concluding first that Defendant’s alternative

method did not result in more than 100 percent of the taxpayer’s income being taxed, and second that the method

“fairly represent[ed]” the taxpayer’s business activity in Oregon in that it “accurately reflect[ed] the cost or value of

films owned by taxpayer and distributed for display in Oregon.” Id. at 236-37. As to component (2), the court

concluded that the method fostered uniformity by conforming to the formula developed by a major film-producing

state. And as to component (3), the court concluded that Defendant’s method “reflects the economic reality of the

distribution of motion pictures by taxpayer by discarding an artificial distinction between prints and negatives and

attributing to a film the costs of production, which more accurately reflects the business activities of the taxpayer.”

Id. at 237.

35

This court observes that, by introducing into the numerator of the property factor the same inputs (gross

receipts) that make up the sales factor, the modification achieved a result much like an extra “weighting” of the sales

factor, which the legislature later adopted over time until it eventually phased out the property and payroll factors

altogether. See Or Laws 2005, ch 832, §§ 48-48a (adopting a single-sales-factor method for tax years beginning on

or after July 1, 2005). Thus, arithmetically, the flaw that the court identified in Twentieth Century-Fox could be

described either (a) in the court’s terms, as an over-weighting of a standard property factor that ignored the real

source of most of the property value (an acted and edited story that the court treated as residing in the negatives), or

(b) as an under-weighting of the sales factor, which the court believed more accurately captured the relative share of

the value of the story delivered to the Oregon market.

36

In Crocker, the taxpayer was a financial organization excluded from UDITPA under ORS 314.615

(1992), but the court applied the substance of the “fairly represent” test under 314.667 because Defendant’s rules for

financial organizations incorporated that test verbatim. See id. at 130. As in Twentieth Century-Fox, the tax years at

issue preceded the 1984 amendments to ORS 314.667; the “fairly represent” test imported into Defendant’s rule did

not require the taxpayer to show that the standard apportionment method was unconstitutional. See id. at 125 (tax

years 1978-80).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 32 of 62

apportionment formula still in place at that time, the court found that excluding intangibles from

the property factor “grossly distorted” the taxpayer’s Oregon income. Id. at 132 (internal

quotations omitted). This distortion was not corrected by the gross revenue factor because the

concept of equal weighting relied on a “built-in assumption that one-third of the net income is

derived from the use of property, one-third from services and one-third from selling.” Id. at 132

(internal quotations omitted). The court accepted the taxpayer’s proffered alternative to include

intangibles in the property factor. See id. at 132-34. As in Twentieth Century-Fox, there was

substantial overlap between the “fairly represents” part of component (1) and the “economic

reality” test in component (3): in both instances, the court relied on the taxpayer’s uncontested

expert testimony that excluding intangibles from the property factor “does not reasonably reflect

how the income is generated for a bank” because a bank generates most of its income from

intangibles. Id. at 131-32, 133-34.

In contrast to Twentieth Century-Fox and Crocker, the court in Pacific Coca-Cola

Bottling v. Dept. of Rev., 307 Or 667, 773 P2d 1290 (1989) found no flaw in the standard

apportionment factor. The taxpayer, seeking alternative apportionment, pointed out that its most

valuable asset was its intangible trademark, which the taxpayer seemed to suggest had a taxable

situs at the taxpayer’s Georgia headquarters. See id. at 672. 37 However, the taxpayer presented

“[n]o reasoned argument” to show that this fact caused the statutory formula to be unfair. Id.

Furthermore, the parties had chosen to “bifurcate[e]” the case at trial, meaning that they stopped

short of asking this court to decide on any specific alternative formula, a forgone process that the

Supreme Court suggested would have shed light on whether the standard formula satisfied the

“fairly represent” requirement. Id. The court concluded that the trademark “helps create the

37

The tax years at issue were 1967 through 1974. See id. at 668.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 33 of 62

sales income” in Oregon; therefore, the taxpayer had not proved that the value of the trademark

was inadequately reflected in the sales factor or in the formula as a whole. Id. at 672.

ii. Test under Twentieth Century-Fox, Crocker, and Pacific Coca-Cola

None of these decisions states a bright-line test along the lines that inclusion of a

particular item in income must be accompanied by a change in the apportionment factor or

factors. However, the basic principle of correlation that underlies factor representation does

seem to find support in the court’s conclusions in Twentieth Century-Fox and Crocker that the

glaring omission of a highly valuable income-producing intangible from the property factor

violates the “fairly represent” requirement. This court concludes that the clear absence of a

correlation in a particular case requires further examination, because it may indicate an

inaccuracy that violates the “fairly represent” requirement. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on

accuracy requires a close examination of the nature of the taxpayer’s business activities and a

determination whether the apportionment formula inaccurately ignores, or over- or underweights,

a substantial feature of the activities. This accuracy analysis, like the analysis of any proffered

alternative methods, must be based on the “economic reality” of the taxpayer’s activities,

“discarding” artificialities such as rigid criteria for assigning property value to tangible vs.

intangible property or to property located within vs. without Oregon.

b. Further review under State v. Gaines

In applying the “fairly represent” requirement under the above decisions, the court is

mindful of important differences in this case. First, all of the decided cases involve only

domestic commerce. Therefore, Oregon’s dramatic shift in 1984 from a worldwide tax base to a

water’s-edge system is not discussed. Second, all of the cases involve alleged inadequacies in

the former three-factor apportionment formula, where it was necessary (and possible) to satisfy

the “fairly represent” standard by rebalancing the relative weight among the three factors (as in

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 34 of 62

Twentieth Century-Fox) or by changing the composition of the property factor (as in all three

cases). By contrast, this case involves tax years in which the sales factor either was the sole

factor or (when taking the early years of the deferral period into account) was at least double-

weighted in relation to the other factors. Plaintiff does not seek to add a different factor, but only

to increase the denominator of the sales factor, in order to represent, or correlate to, the addition

of substantial income from the Twenty Percent Repatriation Amount. 38 Because of these

differences, the court seeks further guidance by applying the framework of State v. Gaines, first

to the “safety valve” statute (ORS 314.667), and then to the relevant provision of the water’s-

edge statutes (ORS 317.267(2)). 346 Or 160.

i. Text and context of ORS 314.667

The court has sought, with little success, to find additional guidance by reviewing the text

and context of ORS 314.667 for any insights specifically relevant to the facts of this case. 39 The

plain meaning of “represent” confirms to the court that the legislature intended to have an

arithmetic formula stand in for, or take the place of, the taxpayer’s business activity. Webster’s

Third New Int’l Dictionary 1926 (unabridged ed 1961)(“to serve as a sign or symbol of” and “to

present by means of something standing in the place of”). 40 To do so “fairly” most likely meant

38

As discussed below, Plaintiff’s third alternative proposal, for “separate accounting,” essentially would

exclude the 20 Percent Oregon Repatriation Amount from income. (See Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 26). This

third proposal is likewise focused on sales-factor apportionment and does not involve changing the sales factor or

adding a different factor; it is the arithmetic equivalent of nominally apportioning the Federal Repatriation Amount

and then applying an Oregon sales factor of zero.

The court has found no legislative history on point, as it appears that neither the UDITPA framers nor the

39

1965 Oregon legislature discussed combined reporting or consolidated returns to any significant extent.

40

The full definitions provided:

“1: to bring clearly before the mind : cause to be known, felt, or apprehended : present esp. by description

“2: to serve as a sign or symbol of

“3: to portray by pictorial, plastic, or musical art : DELINEATE, DEPICT

“4 archaic : to make manifest : DISPLAY, EXHIBIT, SHOW

“5: to exhibit by delineation, depiction, or portrayal —used esp. of a work of art

“6: to present by means of something standing in the place of : serve as the counterpart or image of : TYPIFY

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 35 of 62

to make an impartial, unbiased effort to select a formula that was based in evidence and reason.

Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 816 (unabridged ed 1961). 41 The court finds these

“7: to exhibit dramatically:

“a: to produce on the stage

“b: to act the part or role of : personate in acting or on the stage

“8a: to supply the place, perform the duties, exercise the rights, or receive the share of : take the place of in some

respect : fill the place of for some purpose : substitute in some capacity for : act the part of, in the place of, or for (as

another person) usu. by legal right

“b: to serve (as in a legislative body) by delegated or deputed authority usu. resulting from election<the state

was ~ed in Congress by two Republicans>

“9: to describe as having a specified character or quality

“10: to set forth or place before someone (as by statement, account, or discourse) : exhibit (a fact) to another mind in

language : give one's own impressions and judgment of : state with advocacy or with the design of affecting action

or judgment : point out by way of protest or remonstrance

“11: to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of

“12a: to form an image or representation of in the mind

“b(1) : to apprehend (an object) by means of an idea

“(2) : to recall in memory (an object of previous experience)

“13: to correspond to in kind ~vi : to make representations against something : present objections : protest”

41

Several senses of “fairly” conveyed a range of degrees of accuracy, from merely “tolerably,”

“moderately,” and “rather” to “clearly,” “definitely,” and “fully.” Other senses stressed “in conformity with the

evidence, with reason”; “without fraud, injury or unfair advantage”; and “impartially,” “accurately,” and

“objectively.”

The full definitions provided:

“1a(1) : HANDSOMELY, BEAUTIFULLY<she likes to be overlooking the table with its fairly set dishes and silver —

Eve Langley>

“(2) of writing : in the manner of a final draft : NEATLY, ELEGANTLY<one little essay … written out ~ for the press

but never published — Richard Garnett †1906><you excelled in writing ~ — George Lillo>

b obs : SOFTLY, QUIETLY, GENTLY

c obs : COURTEOUSLY

“2a: to the full degree or extent : CLEARLY, DEFINITELY, ACTUALLY, PLAINLY, DISTINCTLY, FULLY<when the captain

is on board and we are ~ off — Rachel Henning><amongst the boys scurrying to their ten-o'clocks I ~ caught sight

of him — Atlantic><when I had him ~ seated in a hackney coach with me — James Boswell><the chestnut, finding

himself ~ in for it, struck out gamely — Henry Lapham><badly wounded before the battle had ~ begun>

b: as it were : so to speak : ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, DOWNRIGHT<the pages ~ quiver with indignation — Alban

Baer><its waters … are ~ alive with crocodiles — Tom Marvel><~ boiling over with pride — Dorothy C.

Fisher><~ lifted the waters of the gulf and hurled them through the city — A. F. Harlow>

c: SQUARELY, CLEANLY<one of her 8-inch salvos smashed ~ into a large warship — Time>

“3a: in conformity with the evidence, with reason, or with one's

merits : JUSTIFIABLY, PROPERLY, LEGITIMATELY, RIGHTFULLY<our business is to show that the doctrine is false and

this we may ~ claim to have done — A. J. Ayer><his services have ~ earned him promotion>

“b(1) : in a just or lawful manner : without fraud, injury, or unfair advantage : EQUITABLY<fought and beat him ~>

<come by something ~>

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 36 of 62

definitions insufficiently specific to enable the court to decide whether the Water’s-Edge

Group’s unadjusted apportionment factor for TYE 2018 “fairly represent” the extent of the

group’s business activities in Oregon when the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount is added to

income.

In an attempt to find guidance in context, the court has examined the statutes and

administrative rules in place at the time the legislature adopted ORS 314.667 as part of UDITPA.

That effort, too, has been inconclusive. On the one hand, the court finds it clear that, even as of

1965, Defendant had laid the groundwork to require multinational enterprises to use worldwide

combined reporting and was likely doing so. 42 See Reg. 314.280(1)-(B) (1964) (allowing

Defendant to determine the “combined apportionable net income of all the corporations

determined to be a part of the unit”); id. (apportioning by property, wages and sales

“everywhere”); id. (referring to “unitary business carried on outside the state or in interstate or

foreign commerce” and defining “state” to include “any foreign country or political subdivision

thereof”). Knowledge of this fact could reasonably be imputed to the 1965 legislature,

potentially creating an inference that the legislature would have viewed the tax resulting from the

worldwide combined reporting method as an existing, fairly representative baseline against

which to measure the tax resulting from any other method. Cf. DuPont de Nemours v. State Tax

Assessor, 675 A2d 82 (Me 1996) (utilizing the Augusta Formula, discussed below).

“(2) : without bias or distortion : IMPARTIALLY, CANDIDLY, ACCURATELY, OBJECTIVELY<the merits of the plea

were ~ considered><~ described as all very decayed and horrible>

“4: TOLERABLY, MODERATELY, RATHER<a ~ difficult scientific text><a ~ steady diet of lamb and

beef>: moderately well<how are you getting along? Only ~>: PLEASANTLY<the evening passed away very ~ —

Henry Lapham>”

42

Where applicable, references to Defendant Department of Revenue includes its predecessor, State Tax

Commission. See Or Laws 1969, ch 520, § 1 (establishing the Department of Revenue and transferring the powers

and duties of former State Tax Commission commissioners to the director of Department of Revenue).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 37 of 62

Upon closer examination, however, the court is unable to draw any such inference. On

the eve of UDITPA’s enactment, worldwide combined apportionment was a creature of

Defendant’s rules promulgated under a broad delegation of authority in ORS 314.280 (1963).

But the 1965 law made ORS 314.280 inapplicable to all taxpayers except public utilities and

financial organizations, and nothing in UDITPA addressed combined reporting or granted similar

rulemaking authority to Defendant to apply combined reporting to UDITPA taxpayers. See Or

Laws 1965, ch 152, §§ 3, 22 (amending ORS 314.280 & 314.615). This gap in authority may

well have been an oversight not indicative of any legislative disfavor of worldwide combined

reporting, and in fact the Supreme Court later upheld Defendant’s continued application of

combined reporting despite the gap. Coca Cola Co. v. Dept of Revenue, 271 Or 517, 528, 533 P

2d 788, 793 (1975) (“The combined method of apportionment reporting is wholly consistent

with, and a natural extension of, the apportionment method.”). The fact that the 1975 legislature

acted within weeks of the Coca Cola decision to confer express authority on Defendant to

require combined reporting says nothing about the intention of the 1965 legislature. See Or

Laws 1975, ch 760, §2. On this legislative record, the court finds it difficult to identify any

specific evidence that the 1965 legislature would have considered the result under worldwide

combined reporting a fair baseline.

The court concludes that its further examination of the text and context of ORS 314.667

does not change the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Twentieth Century-Fox and later cases.

ii. Text, context and legislative history of ORS 317.267

In an effort to consider all relevant laws involved in the application of allocation and

apportionment provisions, the court extends its analysis to the 1984 act that created Oregon’s

water’s-edge system. By narrowing the tax base to exclude the income of corporations formed

under the law of foreign countries, the 1984 law also raised the question of how the excluded

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 38 of 62

income should be apportioned when it is paid or “attribute[d]” to Oregon shareholders as an

actual or deemed dividend. Moore, 219 L Ed at 281 & passim.

The portion of the 1984 law most on point is the amendment to ORS 317.267, adding the

provision now substantially codified in subsection (2). See Or Laws 1984, ch 1, § 9 (Special

Session). The text of ORS 317.267(2) says nothing about apportionment of dividends. 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 317.010, which do

address apportionment and are the primary statutes governing Oregon’s water’s-edge reporting

system. See id., §§ 2-5; Fresk v. Kraemer, 337 Or 513, 520–521, 99 P 3d 282 (2004) (“Statutory

context includes other provisions of the same statute * * * and the statutory framework within

which the statute was enacted.”); see also Or Laws 1985, ch 802.

The legislative history is particularly relevant. Defendant directs the court to portions of

the legislative history of the 1984 act in which proponents and legislators discuss the partial

subtraction for dividends. (See Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 72-74 (Appendix A).) A

review of that record shows beyond doubt that the legislature was specifically concerned with the

treatment of dividends from foreign subsidiaries. Tape Recording, House Special Committee on

Revenue, HB 3029, July 25, 1984, Tape 90, Side A, 1:08 (statement of Attorney Elizabeth

Stockdale). A significant colloquy also shows that the proponents, who included Governor

Atiyeh and Defendant’s principal attorney, arrived at the concept of granting a partial subtraction

for dividends after many discussions with multinational corporate taxpayers and after

considering other alternatives such as full inclusion of the dividends with factor representation.

Id. at 18:00-19:00. The court is persuaded that the 1984 legislature intended the subtraction of

most of the dividend income from the tax base, now codified in ORS 317.267(2)(b), as a simpler,

more readily administrable proxy for other possible forms of factor relief.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 39 of 62

iii. Conclusion based on Gaines analysis

This additional review of statutory context and legislative history does not change the test

under Twentieth Century-Fox and later cases. However, the legislative history of the 1984 act

persuades the court that the legislature provided the 80 percent subtraction under

ORS 317.267(2) as a proxy for factor relief. This shifts the issue in this case from whether

Oregon should allow any factor relief for the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount to whether the

degree of factor relief allowed is sufficient to meet the “fairly represent” test.

c. Has Plaintiff proved that the result under reinclusion fails the “fairly represent test?

The court considers first whether Plaintiff has proved that Oregon’s UDITPA, after

reincluding the Oregon Repatriation Amount in gross receipts under ORS 314.665(6)(a), lacks

the requisite accuracy to satisfy the “fairly represent” test. The short answer is that Plaintiff has

not attempted to do so. Plaintiff did provide an estimate at oral argument that reinclusion of the

Oregon Repatriation Amount would result in a refund of $5,400,000. (Defendant calculates that

the refund would be $4,600,000.) Either refund amount would get Plaintiff nearly halfway

where it wants to go: depending on which party’s calculation the court uses as a starting point,

the refund amount based on reinclusion is 40 percent or 47 percent of the average of the amounts

Plaintiff claims under its three proposed alternatives. See Table 3, in Part IV, above. 43

Apart from characterizing the result under the court’s interpretation of the reinclusion

clause as having “ameliorated (though not fully resolved)” the alleged unfairness of the

assessment, Plaintiff offers no theoretical basis to treat it as unfair. Under reinclusion, the

identical amount is added to both taxable income of the Water’s-Edge Group and to the

denominator of the sales factor. This is because the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount is, after all,

43

Defendant’s estimated refund assuming reinclusion ($4,600,000) is approximately 40 percent of the

average refund that Plaintiff seeks under its three alternative methods ($11,393,590). Plaintiff’s estimated refund

($5,400,000) is approximately 47 percent.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 40 of 62

a dividend in the hands of the Water’s-Edge Group. The fact that it consists of the earnings and

profits of unitary affiliates, and therefore is “derived from” the Water’s-Edge Group’s own

primary business activity, is relevant only because that fact satisfies the reinclusion clause and

thus gives it the same status as an apportionable gross receipt that it would have had if the 1995

legislature had never enacted ORS 314.665(6)(a). Plaintiff nowhere explains why reinclusion

does not provide complete factor representation. The court concludes that Plaintiff has not

carried its burden of proving that statutory reinclusion does not fairly represent the business

activities of the Water’s-Edge Group in Oregon.

d. Has Plaintiff proved that the result without reinclusion fails the “fairly represent” test?

The court next considers whether Plaintiff has proved that Oregon’s UDITPA, without

reinclusion of the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount, lacks the requisite accuracy. As the court

implied in Pacific Coca-Cola, the proffered alternatives to a statutory apportionment method can

highlight the “connection, if any, between evidence in the record and the contention that the

statutory formula does not fairly represent the business activity of the taxpayer in Oregon.”

Pacific Coca-Cola, 307 Or at 672.

i. Plaintiff’s first proposal: include 20 percent of CFC sales in denominator

The court starts with Plaintiff’s proposal to include 20 percent of CFC sales in the

denominator, as the most apposite of the three proposals. 44 The court sees superficial appeal in

the proposed use of the CFCs’ sales because they seem, at first, to be of like kind to the Water’s-

Edge Group’s sales--all are sales from developing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing,

selling, licensing, and supporting a wide range of software and hardware products, devices, and

services; therefore, under this proposal every dollar in the denominator comes from the same

44

Plaintiff originally proposed including 100 percent of CFC sales in the denominator but acknowledged

on reply that “consistency” requires reducing those sales by 80 percent to correspond with the 80 percent dividend

subtraction that applies to the Federal Repatriation Amount. (Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 27-28.)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 41 of 62

type of sale. But this apparent equivalence dissolves upon a closer look. As just discussed, in

adopting a water’s-edge system, the 1984 Oregon act narrowed the tax base, which necessarily

included transforming the Federal Repatriation Amount from an “intercompany transaction” that

would have been ignored under worldwide combined reporting into a dividend that is counted as

income. Respecting that law change, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s proposal is not

analytically sound because it would compare apples to oranges. Plaintiff’s first proposal thus

fails to reveal any inaccuracy in the assessment.

ii. Plaintiff’s second proposal: include 100 percent of Federal Repatriation Amount

in the denominator.

Plaintiff’s second proposal would include 100 percent of the Federal Repatriation

Amount in the denominator. Defendant argues that ORS 314.667 does not require any

adjustment to the assessment, but that if any adjustment were made, principles of consistency

would demand that no more than 20 percent of the Federal Repatriation Amount be added to the

sales factor denominator. (See Def’s Reply at 7). Plaintiff counters that, for purposes of a

proposal under the safety valve statute, 45 it is not inconsistent to add 100 percent of the Federal

Repatriation Amount to the denominator while adding only 20 percent to taxable income because

“[i]t is reasonable to assume that the 80% DRD corresponds, roughly, to the ratio of costs to

profits in the revenue resulting from the CFCs’ foreign sales. Therefore, it is appropriate to use

the gross deduction, rather than one-fifth of it, as an additional factor.” (Ptf’s Memo Further

Supp Mot Summ J at 28.) Plaintiff offers no evidence that the CFCs’ profit margin is 20 percent.

More importantly, Plaintiff offers no rationale for including both the costs and the profits of the

CFCs in the denominator; to do so is the equivalent of including the gross receipts of the CFCs in

45

For purposes of computing Oregon taxable income under the regular statutory method, “[t]here shall be

excluded from the sales factor * * * any amount subtracted from federal taxable income under” ORS 317.267(2).

ORS 317.267(3).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 42 of 62

the denominator, which is Plaintiff’s first proposal. Yet for the first proposal Plaintiff concedes

that an 80 percent reduction is appropriate for the sake of consistency. The court concludes that

Plaintiffs’ second proposal lacks internal logic and thus fails to prove that the assessment is

inaccurate.

iii. Plaintiff’s third proposal: separate accounting

Plaintiff’s third proposal is for “separate accounting,” by which Plaintiff means that 100

percent, rather than 80 percent, of the Federal Repatriation Amount would be subtracted from

federal taxable income and the apportionment percentage under the assessment would be left

unchanged. (See Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 25-26.) 46 Plaintiff argues that its separate

accounting proposal

“(1) fairly represents Microsoft’s business activity and guarantees taxation of no more

and no less than 100% of Microsoft’s global income while maintaining the water’s-edge

limits adopted by the Oregon legislature; (2) fosters uniformity among UDITPA

members inasmuch as it is the first cure for unfair apportionment listed by UDITPA; and

(3) reflects the reality of Microsoft’s Oregon business activity by taxing Microsoft on a

share of the income earned by Microsoft’s Water’s Edge Group in the United States.”

(Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 26.)

In response, Defendant invokes the same kinds of facts that inform the court’s conclusion

that the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount must be reincluded in gross receipts under

ORS 314.665(6)(a):

“[I]t is undisputed that the Water’s Edge Group held and managed the CFCs as

part of the Group’s unitary business and that Microsoft and all its domestic and

foreign subsidiaries were engaged in a unitary business. Stip Facts ¶ 2. Microsoft

makes no showing that its overseas profits repatriated to the United States

pursuant to IRC § 965 have no reasonable connection so as to be wholly excluded

from taxable income of all water’s-edge tax jurisdictions. Nor can it. For

example, its CFCs had agreements with the Water’s Edge Group to share

development costs. Stip Ex 26; Stip Ex 28; Stip Ex 32 at 537. As part of a

46

Plaintiff’s third proposal would have the same economic effect as treating the 20 Percent Repatriation

Amount as “nonbusiness income,” even though Plaintiff reported it as business income and nowhere argues that it is

properly treated as nonbusiness income. See ORS 314.625, 314.640 (together requiring that dividends constituting

nonbusiness income be wholly assigned to state of commercial domicile).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 43 of 62

‘global approach,’ research and development was funded at the corporate level,

while ‘much of [its] segment level research and development is coordinated with

other segments and leveraged across the company.’ Stip Ex 1 at 12. Its strategy

was global in ambition and scope. * * * Wholly disassociating the CFCs’

activities from the Water’s Edge Group that oversees and manages them as part of

the same unitary business, so as to exempt any return to the Water’s Edge Group

from its operational investment in the CFCs, or equivalently to apportion those

returns to Oregon based on an Oregon apportionment factor of zero, is without

merit.”

(Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 32-34 (emphasis in original; footnote and citation

omitted).)

The court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s separate accounting approach fails to

reflect the economic reality of the unitary nature of the worldwide business, to which the parties

have stipulated. For that reason, it runs directly counter to the analytical approach required

under Twentieth Century-Fox. As a leading commenter has summarized:

“The third inherent defect in separate accounting, as applied to a unitary business,

goes to the merits of the method. As in Alice in Wonderland, it operates in a

universe of unreality. For the essence of the separate accounting technique of

dividing the income of a unitary business is to ignore the interdependence and

integration of the business operations conducted in the various states and to treat

them, instead, as if they were separate, independent, and nonintegrated. Thus, a

business that owns and operates its own rubber plantations, produces rubber and

related raw materials, manufactures a variety of products, ranging from tires,

automobile and airplane parts to raincoats and galoshes, and sells them to

manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, is a very different enterprise from the

sum total of a rubber plantation, a rubber products manufacturer, and a wholesaler

of rubber products, each separate, unaffiliated, and independent, and each owning

and operating one piece of the business. The differences between such separate

businesses and the national and multinational unitary businesses that dominate the

U.S. economy are crucial, and their wealth, power, and profits are attributable to a

considerable extent to the very fact that they are integrated, unitary businesses. It

is for these reasons that separate accounting, which ignores the unitary character

of such businesses, is not a satisfactory method for dividing taxable income

among the states.”

Hellerstein et al., State Taxation at ¶ 8.03; cf. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 302

Or 582, 590-91, 732 P2d 18 (1987) (regarding formulary allocation of centrally assessed

property value) (“The fundamental flaw in Southern Pacific’s argument is that it assumes that the

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 44 of 62

profitability of Cottonbelt can be ascertained without reference to Southern Pacific. * * * The

profitability of ‘bridge’ railroads such as Cottonbelt depends upon integration with ‘terminal’

railroads such as Southern Pacific. The decision to include them in a unit is a decision to

abandon efforts at separate valuation.”). Because of these flaws, the court concludes that

Plaintiff’s third proposal fails to reveal any inaccuracy in the assessment.

e. Conclusion under “fairly represent” test

Applying the test in Twentieth Century-Fox, the court concludes that Plaintiff has not

carried its burden of proving that the assessment is inaccurate, or that the assessment fails to

reflect the economic reality of the Water’s-Edge Group’s activities in Oregon. And Plaintiff has

not carried its burden of proving that the degree of factor representation provided in

ORS 314.665--with or without reinclusion of the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount in the

denominator of the sales factor--is insufficient.

2. Relief Due to Unconstitutionality of Statutory Formula

As an alternative to the statutory “fairly represent” test expressly stated in ORS 314.667,

Plaintiff requests the same factor relief in order to “remedy unconstitutional results.” Twentieth

Century-Fox, 299 Or at 228. Plaintiff claims that the assessment violates the Commerce Clause,

the additional requirements constituting the Foreign Commerce Clause, and the Due Process

Clause.

a. Commerce Clause

Plaintiff asserts that the large increase in Oregon taxable income caused by including the

20 Percent Repatriation Amount in income, while using the same apportionment percentage that

would apply without it, is “grossly distortive.” (Ptf’s Memo Mot Summ J at 11, 15-17; Ptf’s

Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 3-4, 15-18.)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 45 of 62

The court begins with the four-part test articulated by the United States Supreme Court to

determine whether a state tax is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The state tax must

(1) be “applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing state”, (2) be “fairly

apportioned”, (3) “not discriminate against interstate commerce”, and (4) be “fairly related to the

services provided by the State.” Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 US 274, 279, 97 S Ct

1076, 51 L Ed 2d 326 (1977).

i. Substantial nexus

Plaintiff argues that the activity at issue is the accumulation of earnings and profits by its

CFCs over two decades; because the CFCs have no nexus with Oregon, Plaintiff asserts that

Oregon’s apportionment formula fails the substantial nexus requirement. (Ptf’s Memo Further

Supp Mot Summ J at 2-3.) Defendant points out that, while the CFCs may have no nexus with

Oregon, the Water’s Edge Group obviously does, as evidenced by the members’ joining in the

consolidated Oregon return. (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 54.) Nothing more is

required, Defendant asserts, because it is the Water’s Edge Group that is being taxed. (Id.)

Defendant’s argument is plainly correct, based on well-settled law. There is nothing

unconstitutional about taxing the recipient of a dividend on its dividend income, simply because

the payor lacks nexus with the taxing state. See Mobil, 445 US at 436 (rejecting taxpayer’s

argument that “dividends may not be taxed in Vermont because there is no ‘nexus’ between that

State and either [taxpayer’s] management of its investments or the business activities of the

payor corporations.” (emphasis added). The court agrees with Defendant and rejects Plaintiff’s

argument.

ii. Fairly apportioned

Under the Commerce Clause, an apportionment formula must be fair. Container Corp. of

America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 US 159, 169, 103 S Ct 2933, 77 L Ed 2d 545 (1983).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 46 of 62

A. Internal Consistency

The first component of fairness is “internal consistency”: “the formula must be such that,

if applied by every jurisdiction, it would result in no more than all of the unitary business’s

income being taxed.” Id. Plaintiff argues that the method applied in the assessment is internally

inconsistent because it does not reflect the fact that the CFCs’ earnings and profits may have

been taxed by foreign jurisdictions. (See Ptf’s Memo in Supp Mot Summ J at 9 & n 8; Ptf’s

Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 16-17.) The court rejects this argument because, like

Plaintiff’s no-nexus argument, it ignores the difference between taxing a shareholder on

dividends and taxing the subsidiary on the operating income from which the dividend is paid.

Worldwide combined reporting blurred those distinctions through the mechanism of

“intercompany eliminations,” but Plaintiff does not argue that Oregon must return to worldwide

combined reporting. As applied to corporations, Oregon has, in essence, voluntarily defined the

scope of the “unitary group” more narrowly than is constitutionally required. Under its water’s-

edge system, Oregon does not tax the CFCs, nor does it include their income in the measurement

of the tax base except to the extent that a dividend is declared or is “attribute[d]” to the Water’s-

Edge Group by operation of law. Moore, 219 L Ed at 281 & passim. Therefore, internal

consistency does not require Oregon to allow a credit or other adjustment to account for taxes the

CFCs may have to pay to other jurisdictions. If every jurisdiction were to do the same, the

Water’s-Edge Group would not be taxed on more than 100 percent of its income. This is true

regardless of whether the 20 Percent Repatriation Amount is reincluded in the apportionment

formula under ORS 314.665(6)(a). Plaintiff thus conflates the fact that the 20 Percent

Repatriation Amount is measured by the earnings and profits of the CFCs with the fact that the

20 Percent Repatriation Amount is a dividend under Oregon’s water’s-edge laws. See DuPont,

675 A2d 82 (overruling a previous decision, Tambrands v. State Tax Assessor, 595 A2d 1039

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 47 of 62

(Me 1991), which concluded that internal consistency test was violated when formula allowed no

factor representation for foreign subsidiaries outside the water’s-edge reporting group that paid

dividends to US taxpayer). The court concludes that Plaintiff has not proved internal

inconsistency.

B. External Consistency

The second component of fairness is external consistency: “the factor or factors used in

the apportionment formula must actually reflect a reasonable sense of how income is generated.”

Container Corp., 463 US at 169. Courts will strike down an apportionment formula if the

taxpayer can prove by clear and cogent evidence that the income attributed to the state is “‘out of

all appropriate proportion to the business transacted in that state’” or leads “‘to a grossly

distorted result.’” Id. at 170 (quoting Hans Rees’ Sons v. No. Carolina, 283 US 123, 135, 51 S

Ct 385, 75 L Ed 879 (1931) and Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Missouri State Tax Comm’n, 390 US

317, 326, 88 S Ct 995, 19 L Ed 2d 1201 (1968) (Norfolk & Western)).

I. Measure of “Gross Distortion”

Plaintiff’s argument for gross distortion, like its argument under the statutory “fairly

represent” test, ignores the result under the reinclusion clause of ORS 314.665(6)(a). Plaintiff

uses only the assessment as its starting point to prove gross distortion. Accordingly, Plaintiff has

not carried its burden of proving that apportionment under the reinclusion clause grossly distorts

its Oregon taxable income.

Turning to Plaintiff’s external consistency argument based on the assessment itself,

Plaintiff quantifies the distortion as follows:

• More than ten-fold increase in tax. Plaintiff complains of “a more than ten-fold

(1000%) increase in tax burden for a substantially similar level of Oregon sales.”

(Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 12.) This appears to refer to the fact

that Plaintiff’s tax due to Oregon for TYE 2017 was approximately $1,535,000,

while the amount assessed for TYE 2018 exceeded $16 million. (Id. at 12.)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 48 of 62

• 17.5 times average tax of the two preceding years. Plaintiff goes on to state that,

“For FY 2018 * * * Oregon has charged Microsoft $16.7M * * *, 17.5 times the

average of the two preceding years.” (Id.) (For TYE 2016, Plaintiff paid Oregon

tax of $373,015, which when added to $1,535,000 for TYE 2017 is $1,908,015;

the average of the tax paid for the two years is $954,008.)

• 8.26 times average tax of the four preceding years. In response to Defendant’s

criticism that Plaintiff’s “17.5 times” calculation “cherry picks” the two years

preceding TYE 2018, Plaintiff calculates that its “Oregon sales were 4.7% above

the average of the preceding four years, but its tax liability based on the standard

formula is 8.26 times the average of the preceding four years.” (Ptf’s Memo

Further Supp Mot Summ J at 8 n 7 (emphasis added); see id. at 9 n 8.)

Taken at face value, these comparisons fail to support Plaintiff’s position because the

dollar amount of tax in any given year depends on more than just the apportionment percentage.

As Defendant argues, “One must do more than simply point to an increase in tax if large items of

income are included in the tax base.” (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 44.) Comparisons

relevant to a distortion analysis under the Commerce Clause include the percentage difference

between or among competing methods of computing the tax base or the tax amount, given the

same set of inputs. See Hans Rees’ Sons, 283 US at 134 (invalidating apportionment method

later described in Container Corp. as creating a more than 250 percent increase in taxable

income compared to taxpayer’s methodology); Norfolk & Western at 328 (invalidating property

tax allocation method where the assessed value of property was 200 percent of actual value); cf.

Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 US 267, 271 n 4, 98 S Ct 2340, 57 L Ed 2d 197 (1978)

(upholding state’s income apportionment formula based solely on in-state sales despite resulting

increase in tax base of approximately 48 percent); Container Corp., 463 US at 184 (upholding

income apportionment methodology where “the percentage increase in taxable income

attributable to California between the methodology employed by appellant and the methodology

employed by appellee comes to approximately 14%, a far cry from the more than 250%

difference which led us to strike down the state tax in Hans Rees’ Sons, Inc., and a figure

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 49 of 62

certainly within the substantial margin of error inherent in any method of attributing income

among the components of a unitary business.”); see generally Hellerstein et al., State Taxation at

¶ 8.16[5] (proper standard for determining percentage of distortion is “comparing the percentage

differences between the application of the different methodologies”); see also Unisys Corp. v.

Bd. of Finance & Revenue, 571 Pa 139, 162-63, 812 A2d 448 (2002) (taxpayer “must establish a

proper baseline” to evaluate external consistency). The court finds Plaintiff’s year-to-year

comparisons of apportionment percentage and tax amounts superficial and unpersuasive because

the other main input (overall taxable income) experienced a sudden, dramatic spike in the year at

issue.

When expressed instead as the percentage difference between competing methods,

Plaintiff’s amended return takes the position that the assessment overstates its Oregon taxable

income and Oregon tax amounts by approximately 182 percent. 47 The court concludes that, if

the relative percentage difference were the only test for unfair apportionment, Plaintiff’s claim

would not fail as a matter of law. Cf. PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev., __ OTR __ (TC 5411) (Or

Tax, Jul 17, 2023) (slip op at 89-90) (alleged 9 percent inflation of allocation percentage not

distortive as a matter of law). But establishing that the size of the difference is within the range

of potential gross distortion is only a first step that allows the court to go on to examine whether

there is distortion at all.

II. Whether the Result Under the Assessment Is “Distorted”

47

Plaintiff’s amended return seeks a reduction in Oregon taxable income from $225,218,064 (original

return) to $79,872,371 (amended return), a difference of $145,345,693 ($225,218,064-79,872,371 = $145,345,693).

(Stip Ex 24 at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended return also seeks a reduction in Oregon Tax from $17,106,573

(original return) to $6,060,300 (amended return), a difference of $11,046,273 ($17,106,573-$6,060,300 =

$11.046,273). Id. Overall, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s method inflates its Oregon taxable income and

resulting Oregon tax by ~182%. ($145,345,693(reduction in Oregon taxable income sought by

Plaintiff)/$79,872,371 (amended Oregon taxable income) =~182% and ($11,046,273 (reduction in Oregon tax

sought by Plaintiff)/$6,060,30 (amended Oregon tax amount) = ~182%.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 50 of 62

This court interprets the United States Supreme Court’s references to “distortion” as

requiring that the assessment be inaccurate or not reflective of reality. Plaintiff points to the fact

that the sales factor “takes no account of overseas operations or of the period of time over which

the CFCs accumulated the earnings and profits at issue.” (Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ

J at 3.) According to Plaintiff, this lack of factor representation inaccurately taxes “one-half of

one percent of [Plaintiff’s] much larger global business over two decades.” (Id. at 4, 17-18.)

However, it is precisely the fact that the one-time addition of the 20 Percent Repatriation

Amount is derived from many years’ worth of accumulated CFC earnings and profits that

undermines Plaintiff’s distortion claim. Defendant points out that at least one state supreme

court has adopted as a baseline the amount of taxable income that would have resulted if

worldwide combined reporting had applied to the entire Worldwide Group. (See Def’s Cross-

Mot Summ J & Resp at 40-46.) DuPont, 675 A2d 82 (Me 1996). Applying this comparison in a

detailed analysis, Defendant has concluded that Plaintiff “has less aggregate Oregon taxable

income over the period from TYE 2000 to TYE 2018 under [the method used in Defendant’s

assessment] than it would under a proxy for combined reporting.” (Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J &

Resp at 51.) 48

Under worldwide combined reporting, Defendant estimates that the Worldwide Group’s

Oregon taxable income over the period TYE 2000 to TYE 2018 would have been more than

$872 million, which substantially exceeds the amount of Oregon taxable income that the

Water’s-Edge Group had over the same period ($734 million or $785 million, depending on

whether single-factor apportionment is used for the early years). (See Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J

& Resp at 48-49.) This amounts to a savings in tax to the Water’s-Edge Group of some $9.1

48

Defendant’s “proxy method” uses stipulated facts, facts represented by Plaintiff in support of Plaintiff’s

alternative proposals, and facts from Plaintiff’s public financial reports to estimate the worldwide income and sales

of the unitary group, including the income and sales of the CFCs. (See Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 46-53.)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 51 of 62

million or $5.7 million, respectively, which is conservative in Plaintiff’s favor in applying only

the lowest marginal tax rate of 6.6 percent. See ORS 317.061 and Or Laws 2009, ch 745, §§ 5-

10 (introducing second marginal rate of 7.9 percent for tax years 2009 and 2010 and 7.6 percent

for tax years after 2010). These estimates also are conservative in that they ignore the time value

of money, i.e., the fact that the Water’s-Edge Group had the use of the cash it otherwise would

have paid in tax under a worldwide combined method, which would not have allowed deferral of

tax on the income earned by the CFCs. Using an approximately four percent interest rate

compounded annually, Defendant estimates that Plaintiff had an additional savings of

approximately $1.7 million in Oregon tax by deferring tax on the Oregon Federal Repatriation

Amount until TYE 2018. (See Def’s Cross-Mot Summ J & Resp at 52; Decl of Larimer at 2-4, ¶¶

2-8.) Plaintiff does not contest the accuracy of Defendant’s calculations, only their relevance. 49

(See Ptf’s Memo Further Supp at 18 (referring to Defendant’s comparison as “a convoluted

hypothetical”); Def’s Reply at 10.)

49

The court finds that Defendant necessarily adapts the Augusta Formula as laid out in Du Pont in order to

apply it to the facts of this case, but that these adaptations in no way affect the validity of the Augusta Formula as “a

check on the tax assessed on the income of a multijurisdictional corporation with foreign subsidiaries * * *.” Du

Pont, 675 A2d at 91.

• Du Pont involved only three tax years (1985-87) and, apparently, current-year dividends, while Defendant’s

computations extend the Augusta Formula over the nearly twenty-year period during which the CFCs

accumulated the earnings and profits that were deemed distributed in TYE 2018.

• In Du Pont, the taxpayer sought to altogether exclude the foreign-subsidiary dividends as nonbusiness

income, causing the court to evaluate that scenario as determination “(C).” See id. Plaintiff in this case

does not request that relief, and to the extent that Plaintiff’s separate accounting proposal amounts to the

same thing, the court has already rejected it as contrary to the unitary business principle that underlies the

reinclusion clause of ORS 314.665(6)(a). Thus, this court sees no need to include a third comparison in

the Augusta Formula.

• Du Pont applied UDITPA’s original three-factor apportionment formula then in effect in Maine, while

Oregon law for the tax year at issue and most of the tax years of the deferral period used single-factor

apportionment. Plaintiff raises no issue as to the fairness of single-factor apportionment. (Ptf’s Memo

Further Supp at 10 (“Microsoft is not asking that the State’s single-factor approach to apportionment be

struck down, but rather that factor representation be given, or a separate accounting applied, to eliminate or

reduce gross distortion.”).)

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 52 of 62

The origin of the Federal Repatriation Amount in the operating income of Plaintiff’s

unitary business makes the Augusta Formula a highly persuasive way to examine the fairness of

the assessment, because the United States Supreme Court has upheld worldwide combined

reporting as a fair method for Commerce Clause purposes. See Container Corp., 463 US at 184;

Barclays Bank v. Franchise Tax Bd. Of California, 512 US 298, 330-331, 114 S Ct 2268, 129 L

Ed 2d 244 (1994). Because the assessment in this case results in no greater amount of tax than

would have been imposed under the worldwide combined reporting approach over the period

that the Water’s-Edge Group enjoyed the deferral of income from the CFCs, the court concludes

that the assessment satisfies the external consistency requirement of a fair apportionment of the

business income of the Water’s-Edge Group.

iii. Not discriminatory

“Besides being fair, an apportionment formula must, under the Commerce Clause, also

not result in discrimination against interstate or foreign commerce.” Container Corp., 463 US at

170. Plaintiff argues that the method used for the assessment discriminates against foreign

commerce “by failing to include any of the deemed dividend payers’ factors in the Sales Factor

apportionment formula.” (Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 12.) Plaintiff relies principally on

Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Dep’t of Rev., 505 US 71, 112 S Ct 2365, 120 L Ed 2d 59 (1992),

but the court finds that case distinguishable. In Kraft, the Court concluded that Iowa’s income

tax law, which required each corporation subject to tax to file its own separate return,

discriminated against foreign commerce by including in the taxable income of a corporation

doing business in Iowa 100 percent of a dividend paid by a foreign subsidiary not doing business

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 53 of 62

in Iowa, while allowing a 100 percent deduction for a dividend paid by a domestic corporation

not doing business in Iowa. 50 However, the Court noted:

“If one were to compare the aggregate tax imposed by Iowa on a unitary business

which included a subsidiary doing business throughout the United States

(including Iowa) with the aggregate tax imposed by Iowa on a unitary business

which included a foreign subsidiary doing business abroad, it would be difficult to

say that Iowa discriminates against the business with the foreign subsidiary. Iowa

would tax an apportioned share of the domestic subsidiary's entire earnings, but

would tax only the amount of the foreign subsidiary's earnings paid as a dividend

to the parent.

“In considering claims of discriminatory taxation under the Commerce Clause,

however, it is necessary to compare the taxpayers who are ‘most similarly

situated.’ Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Reily, 373 US 64, 71, 83 S Ct

1201, 1205, 10 L Ed 2d 202 (1963). A corporation with a subsidiary doing

business in Iowa is not situated similarly to a corporation with a subsidiary doing

business abroad. In the former case, the Iowa operations of the subsidiary provide

an independent basis for taxation not present in the case of the foreign subsidiary.

A more appropriate comparison is between corporations whose subsidiaries do

not do business in Iowa.”

Kraft, 505 US at 80 n 23.

This court understands the scenario posited in the last sentence of footnote 23 as

follows: two parent corporations are subject to tax in a taxing state. Parent 1 conducts a

unitary business together with a domestic subsidiary; Parent 2 conducts a unitary business

together with a foreign subsidiary. Neither subsidiary does business in the state. The

footnote invites a comparison of how the income earned by each subsidiary is taxed to

the respective parent.

Turning to the first sentence of the footnote, if the comparison shows that the state taxes

“an apportioned share of the domestic subsidiary’s entire earnings, but would tax only the

amount of the foreign subsidiary’s earnings paid as a dividend to the parent,” then “it would be

50

See Kraft, 505 US at 74 n 9 (“Iowa is not a State that taxes an apportioned share of the entire income of a

unitary business, without regard for formal corporate lines.”).

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 54 of 62

difficult to say that [the state] discriminates” against Parent 2 on the grounds that its subsidiary is

engaged in foreign country. Id.

This court concludes that the skepticism expressed by the Kraft Court is even more

strongly warranted under Oregon law than under the scenario posited in the footnote. In the

footnote, the Court suggests that no discrimination is present where 100 percent of the foreign

subsidiary’s dividend is taxed to Parent 2, as long as an apportioned share of the domestic

subsidiary’s earnings are taxed to Parent 1. Oregon’s consolidated return scheme taxes only 20

percent of a CFC’s dividend, while taxing an apportioned share of the domestic subsidiary’s

earnings. Cf. DuPont, 675 A2d at 88 (“Because the income of the unitary domestic affiliates is

included, apportioned, and ultimately directly taxed by Maine as part of the parent company’s

income, the inclusion of dividends paid by foreign subsidiaries does not constitute the kind of

facial discrimination against foreign commerce that caused the Supreme Court to invalidate

Iowa’s tax scheme in Kraft.”). Moreover, under the reinclusion clause of ORS 314.665(6)(a),

the chance of material disadvantage that could be characterized as discrimination is further

reduced because the CFC’s dividend is itself eligible to be apportioned, like any other dividend

that is business income. Plaintiff has failed to persuade the court that the method used in the

assessment discriminates against foreign commerce.

4. Fairly related

Finally, a state tax must be “fairly related to the services provided by the State.”

Complete Auto, 430 US at 279. More specifically, the Court has declared that the “relevant

inquiry under the fourth prong of the Complete Auto Transit test is not * * * the amount of the

tax of the value of the benefits allegedly bestowed * * *.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

Montana, 453 US 609, 625, 101 S Ct 2946, 69 L Ed 2d 884 (1981) (emphasis in original).

Rather, beyond the threshold requirement of substantial nexus, “the measure of the tax must be

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 55 of 62

reasonably related to the extent of the contact * * *.” Id. at 626 (emphasis in original) (severance

tax “measured as a percentage of the value of the coal taken” held in proper proportion to mining

company’s in-state activities). In Goldberg v. Sweet, the Court further clarified that the “fairly

related” test “focuses on the wide range of benefits provided to the taxpayer, not just the precise

activity connected to the interstate activity at issue.” 488 US 252, 267, 109 S Ct 582, 102 L Ed

2d 607 (1989) (upholding gross receipts tax measured by calls originating or terminating in the

state).

Plaintiff argues that Oregon provided no services related to the activity at issue here, the

foreign earnings. (Ptf’s Memo Mot Summ J at 12; Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 8.)

This argument fails under Goldberg as quoted above.

Taxpayer argues further that the “huge jump” in the tax due for TYE 2018 does not

reflect “any increase in the services provided by Oregon[.]” (Ptf’s Memo Mot Summ J at 13;

Ptf’s Memo Further Supp Mot Summ J at 8-9.) This argument fails because, to the extent that

the “fairly related” requirement differs from the “fairly apportioned” requirement,

Commonwealth Edison teaches that the former emphasizes whether the tax is structured to reflect

the extent of the taxpayer’s contact with the state. Oregon’s tax, like most state and local net

income taxes in the United States, uses the ratio of in-state sales to everywhere sales to

determine the proportion of overall income that is taxable. See, e.g. State Primary

Apportionment Factors for Tax Year 2020, Tax Foundation,

https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/apportionment/ (accessed Aug 22, 2024); cf. State

Apportionment of Corporate Income, Federation of Tax Administrators,

https://taxadmin.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/Research/Rates/apport.pdf (accessed Aug 22,

2024). “Sales” is similar to the concepts of “value” and “gross charge” that the Court concluded

satisfied the “fairly related” requirement in Commonwealth Edison (453 US at 626) and

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 56 of 62

Goldberg (488 US at 258). Although the tax in this case is more complex because it couples

“sales” with the vast concept of “net income,” the court cannot conclude that the basic structure

of the corporation excise tax violates the “fairly related” requirement. As the court understands

the cases, whether specific provisions of state law are sufficiently fair, such as those governing

factor representation, is to be determined under the “fair apportionment” or other prongs of the

Complete Auto test, as discussed above.

b. Foreign Commerce Clause

In Barclays, 512 US at 311, the United States Supreme Court declared:

“A tax affecting foreign commerce therefore raises two concerns in addition to the

four delineated in Complete Auto. The first is prompted by the enhanced risk of

multiple taxation. The second relates to the Federal Government’s capacity to

speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign

governments.”

(Emphasis in original; citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) This court focuses on

Plaintiff’s “multiple taxation” argument, as Plaintiff has acknowledged that it does not rely on

any argument about the federal government’s capacity to “speak with one voice.” (Statement of

Robert Mitchell, Oral Argument, Apr 4, 2023, 1:35.) 51

Plaintiff contends that the assessment results in “actual multiple international taxation,”

citing Japan Line, Ltd. v. Los Angeles County, 441 US 434, 451, 99 S Ct 1813, 60 L Ed 2d 336

(1979). (Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 13 (emphasis in original).) In Japan Line, the Court

declared impermissible California’s imposition of ad valorem property tax on shipping

containers that were physically present in the state on the annual assessment date. See id. at 437,

451-52. Meanwhile, under Japanese law, the same shipping containers also were “subject to

51

As in other parts of its analysis, Plaintiff ignores the effect of reinclusion of the 20 Percent Repatriation

Amount under ORS 314.665(6)(a). Because the court concludes that the assessment does not violate the “multiple

taxation” prohibition, the court concludes that the assessment, as reduced by the partial refund attributable to

reinclusion, does not violate it, either.

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 57 of 62

property tax in Japan and, in fact, are taxed there.” Id. at 436. The Court observed that, within

the United States, the Court, in its enforcement of the Commerce Clause, can prevent multiple

taxation of the full value of an instrumentality of commerce by requiring the value to be

apportioned among states having jurisdiction to tax it. See id. at 446-47. However, when a

foreign sovereign asserts a right to tax the full value, “[i]f a State should seek to tax the same

instrumentality on an apportioned basis, multiple taxation inevitably results.” Id. at 447. The

Court found California’s levies impermissible because they produced “multiple taxation in fact.”

Id. at 451-52, 454.

Plaintiff seeks the same result in this case, pointing to evidence that the CFCs in this case

“already paid foreign tax on much of the earnings and profits that comprise the deemed dividend

* * *.” (Ptf’s Memo Supp Mot Summ J at 13 (citing Stip Ex 21 at 329).) Defendant does not

contest the fact that the CFCs, in the aggregate, paid some foreign tax, although Defendant

contends that “some of the CFCs appear to have paid little or no foreign tax on their income.”

(Def’s Reply at 32 n 19.) Defendant’s main argument is that later United States Supreme Court

cases have refined the “multiple taxation” test, such that actual payment of tax to a foreign

jurisdiction “is not a trump card.” (Def’s Reply at 30.) This court agrees with Defendant, and

the court concludes further that Plaintiff has not shown that the assessment exceeds the more

nuanced description in Container Corp. and Barclay’s of the nondiscrimination requirement.

In Container Corp., the Court declined to invalidate California’s system of taxing an

apportioned share of income using a worldwide combined reporting methodology, even though

the taxpayer showed that “actual double taxation” had occurred because “some of the income

taxed without apportionment by foreign nations as attributable to [the taxpayer’s] foreign

subsidiaries was also taxed by California as attributable to the State’s share of the total income of

the unitary business * * *.” 463 US at 187. The Court found this result tolerable under Japan

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TC 5413 Page 58 of 62

Line because “the double taxation in this case, although real, is not the ‘inevitabl[e]’ result of the

California taxing scheme.” Id. at 188. Rather, the double taxation in Container Corp. arose

from the interaction of the two main approaches to cross-border taxation: apportionment

(California’s chosen approach) and “arm’s-length” taxation (used by “most foreign nations” and

essentially the same as separate accounting). Id. at 163. The Court explained that “[w]hether the

combination of the two methods results in the same income being taxed twice or in some portion

of income not being taxed at all is dependent solely on the facts of the individual case.” Id. at

188.

Eleven years after Container Corp., the Court again considered California’s worldwide

combined reporting system in Barclays, which included a multinational enterprise headquartered

outside the United States. 52 Barclays, 512 US at 302 (“Barclays Bank PLC * * * is a United

Kingdom corporation * * *.”). With respect to the “multiple taxation” prong of the Foreign

Commerce Clause issue, the Court expressly ad

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.