United States: Oregon Tax Court Denies Use Of Multistate Tax Compact's Three-Factor Apportionment Formula Election

On September 9, 2015, the Oregon Tax Court granted the Oregon Department of Revenue's motion for summary judgment and denied a taxpayer's election to use the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula provided by the Multistate Tax Compact.1 The state of Oregon was a full member of the Compact for the 2005-2007 corporate excise (income) tax years at issue, but the state enacted legislation in 1993 directing that inconsistencies between the Compact provisions and the Oregon apportionment statutes be construed in favor of the Oregon statutes. The Court determined that the 1993 legislation was enacted for the purpose of disabling the Compact election and did not violate the U.S. or Oregon Constitutions or federal statutory law. As a result, the taxpayer could not make the apportionment election under the Compact.


The taxpayer, a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, was engaged in the delivery of managed health care services through health plans and government-sponsored managed care plans. During the 2005-2007 tax years at issue, the taxpayer engaged in a multistate, unitary business that included activities in Oregon. In its original return for the relevant tax years, the taxpayer apportioned income to Oregon using the state statutory method that includes a single sales factor for apportionment.2 The taxpayer subsequently filed amended returns and refund claims for the 2005-2007 tax years based on an election to use an equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula as provided in the Oregon statute that adopted the Compact. The Department denied the refund claims for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and partially denied the refund claim for the 2007 tax year on the basis that the Compact election was not available to the taxpayer. The taxpayer appealed the refund denials and requested a conference with the Department. After the Department upheld the refund denials on the basis that the Compact election was not available, the taxpayer timely appealed to the Oregon Tax Court.

Historical Oregon Apportionment

Oregon has been a member state of the Compact since 1967.3 Historically, the evenlyweighted three-factor apportionment formula rule in Oregon was consistent with the model provisions of the Compact.4 Under Article III of the Compact, taxpayers were afforded the ability to elect an equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula to apportion an income tax.5 In 1991, the state moved to a property, payroll and doubleweighted sales formula.6 In 1993, Oregon shifted further from Compact apportionment by adopting a statute, Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 314.606, providing that: "In any case in which the provisions of ORS 314.605 to 314.675 [Oregon apportionment statutes] are inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 305.655 [statute adopting the Compact prior to 2013], the provisions of ORS 314.605 to 314.675 shall control."7 Oregon continued to move further from Compact apportionment and transitioned from an 80 percent sales factor to a singlesales apportionment formula that is effective for tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2005.8 In 2013, Oregon repealed the entirety of the Compact and simultaneously reenacted a substantially similar statute, exclusive of Articles III and IV of the Compact.9

1993 Legislation Disabled Compact Election

In determining that the taxpayer could not make the equally-weighted three-factor apportionment election under the Compact, the Oregon Tax Court thoroughly analyzed the statute, Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 314.606, which provides that the Oregon apportionment statutes have priority over inconsistent provisions in the Compact. The Court first considered the legislative intent behind the enactment of Sec. 314.606 in 1993. According to the Court, the context of the statute as well as the legislative history supported a conclusion that the legislature intended the statute to disable the Compact's equallyweighted three-factor apportionment election. This issue became important in Oregon when the state shifted from an equally-weighted three-factor apportionment formula to a formula with a more heavily weighted sales factor.

Following its initial interpretation of Sec. 314.606, the Tax Court addressed five separate taxpayer arguments attacking the validity of this statute. The taxpayer claimed a violation of the Full Text Provision and the Oregon Contract Clause of the Oregon Constitution. Also, the taxpayer argued that there was a violation of a federal statute as well as violations of the Federal Contract Clause and Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As discussed below, the Court rejected each of the taxpayer's arguments.

Full Text Provision of Oregon Constitution

The Tax Court determined that Sec. 314.606 did not violate the Full Text Provision of the Oregon Constitution. This section provides that "[n]o act shall ever be revised, or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised, or section amended shall be set forth, and published at full length."10 The Court determined that Sec. 314.606 did not purport to amend the Compact, but provided a "tie-breaker" for inconsistences between the Oregon apportionment statutes and the Compact. The statute was an independent and complete law. Rather than repealing the Compact election, the statute effectively disabled the election. The Court took an additional step in its analysis, and determined that even if the Compact election were considered to be repealed, the Oregon Full Text Provision would not be violated.

Contract Clause of Oregon Constitution

According to the Tax Court, Sec. 314.606 did not violate the Contract Clause of the Oregon Constitution. This section provides that "[n]o . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed."11 The Court determined that Sec. 314.606 did not impair the obligation of contracts because the Compact was not a contract, as determined by state law. For a statutory contract to exist, traditional elements of a contract must be present, including offer, acceptance and consideration. However, the only consideration to sign the Compact was the reciprocal promises of other states to participate. When combined with the unconditional right of cancellation or withdrawal contained in the Compact,12 there essentially was no promise to participate, and hence there was no contract. The Court explained that several member states have amended or disabled the provisions of the Compact. Even if the Compact were a contract, the ability to change the terms of the Compact in each state, and the ability to withdraw mitigated against a finding that the Oregon Contract Clause was violated. Furthermore, the provisions of the Compact do not clearly and unambiguously indicate an intention to bind future state legislatures.

Federal Statute

The taxpayer did not offer to the Court a federal statute containing a procedural or substantive limitation on the actions of the Oregon legislature in adopting Sec. 314.606. Because the Compact was not approved by Congress, the Compact was not a federal statute that could be violated by the contested state statute.

Contract Clause of U.S. Constitution

The Tax Court held that Sec. 314.606 did not violate the Federal Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under this clause, "[n]o State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts[.]"13 The Tax Court's determination that the Compact was not a contract ultimately meant that a violation of the Federal Contract Clause did not occur. There was nothing in the record to support a reasonable inference that the taxpayer ever expected the actions of the Compact states and the Compact election to involve a binding agreement. The taxpayer did not change its business practices or initially file its returns making a Compact election. Again, the Court took an additional step in its analysis, determining that even if the Compact constituted a contract, the many changes made by states mitigated against a finding that the Federal Contract Clause was violated.

Compact Clause of U.S. Constitution

Finally, the Tax Court determined that Sec. 314.606 did not violate the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause provides that "[n]o state shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."14 The Court held that the Compact is not a compact covered by the Federal Compact Clause. Finding that this clause only applies to agreements directed to form a combination tending to increase the political power of states which would encroach on federal supremacy, the Court noted that the Compact never received the approval of Congress. The Compact was a state law entered into by state legislatures which did not bind itself to a contract.

The taxpayer unsuccessfully argued that Oregon was prohibited from unilaterally overriding or altering the Compact's terms to eliminate the apportionment election. After discussing the fundamental nature of interstate compacts, the Court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the principle of the precedence of interstate compacts over other state law applies regardless of Congressional consent. The Court noted that this issue was particularly important because the Compact did not receive or need Congressional approval. Prior to analyzing the numerous cases cited by the taxpayer, the Court took the unusual step of explaining that "[a]s will be seen, quotations and borrowed phrases from various cases can easily suggest answers to the important questions in this case that simply are unsupportable." After commenting that the Contract Clauses, assuming a contract exits, are the limits on state legislatures, the Court noted that "[c]areless citations and observations by litigants and courts cannot support the existence of another limit on state legislative action."

Following an analysis of each case cited by the taxpayer, the Court noted that "[n]otwithstanding general statements found in cases and often repeated, there is simply no authority for the proposition that under the Compact Clause, an independent limitation on state legislatures exists when no approval by Congress was necessary or given." Although limitations exist, "in the absence of approval of a compact by Congress, they derive from either the state or federal Contract Clauses." The Court concluded that "[t]he label 'compact' does not have a talismanic power to create a substantive limitation on the actions of state legislatures."


The Tax Court provided an expansive analysis concluding that: (i) the Compact is not a contract; and (ii) the Oregon legislature may override components of the Compact through the adoption of a broad "inconsistency" statute. This case is likely to be appealed to, and considered by the Oregon Supreme Court. While this decision will be viewed as a victory for states from a revenue preservation perspective, it is fair to ask whether the ability of states to pursue any level of uniformity through a collaborative agreement (even if such agreement is named a compact) is impossible to achieve. This case also is noteworthy because the Tax Court uses unusually strong language, as discussed above, in rejecting the taxpayer's Federal Compact Clause argument.

The state of Oregon enacted legislation in 2013 that repealed the statute adopting the Compact and re-enacted the Compact without Articles III and IV.15 The Tax Court did not address this legislation in its exhaustive opinion, presumably because the legislation was not effective until after the relevant tax years. However, if Sec. 314.606 disabled the Compact election provision as determined by the Tax Court, there apparently would not have been a need for the state to enact the 2013 legislation that effectively repealed the Compact's apportionment provisions. Based on the legislative action in 2013, it can be implied that the legislature believed that there was some level of validity to the argument that the Compact's three-factor apportionment election was applicable prior to this action.

The decision is consistent with the recent trend of taxpayer defeats on this issue in several states in the last 12 months. With defeats in Minnesota16 and Texas,17 and the legislative reversal of a taxpayer-favorable decision in Michigan,18 taxpayers have seen their overall chances of success on this issue decline significantly. It will be interesting to see whether components of the Tax Court's analysis are woven into the upcoming California Supreme Court hearing in Gillette scheduled for October 2015.19


1 Health Net, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court, No. TC 5127, Sept. 9, 2015.

2 The taxpayer used a single sales factor for a portion of the 2005 tax year and the entire 2006 and 2007 tax years.

3 OR. REV. STAT. § 305.655, enacted by Ch. 242, Laws 1967.

4 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.650, prior to 1989 amendments.

5 Former OR. REV. STAT. § 305.655.

6 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.650, prior to 2001 amendments.

7 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.606, enacted by Ch. 726, Laws 1993.

8 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.650, as amended by Ch. 793 (H.B. 2281), Laws 2001; Ch. 739 (H.B. 3183), Laws 2003.

9 Ch. 407 (S.B. 307), Laws 2013, effective Oct. 7, 2013. This legislation repealed the statute that had adopted the Compact (OR. REV. STAT. § 305.655) and replaced it with a new version of the Compact (OR. REV. STAT. § 305.653) that intentionally omits Articles III and IV. For a discussion of this legislation, see GT SALT Alert: Oregon Effectively Repeals Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Provisions.

10 OR. CONST. art. IV, § 22.

11 OR. CONST. art. I, § 21.

12 The Compact provides that "[a]ny party state may withdraw from this compact by enacting a statute repealing the same." OR. REV. STAT. § 305.653(Art. X)(2).

13 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10.

14 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10.

15 Ch. 407 (S.B. 307), Laws 2013, effective Oct. 7, 2013.

16 Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, Minnesota Tax Court, File No. 8670-R, June 19, 2015. For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Minnesota Tax Court Denies Use of Multistate Tax Compact's Equally-Weighted Three-Factor Apportionment Formula Election.

17 Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Hegar, Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, No. 03-14- 00197-CV, July 28, 2015. For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Texas Appeals Court Denies Use of Compact's Three-Factor Formula As Revised Texas Franchise Tax Is Not Considered an Income Tax.

18 In International Business Machines v. Department of Treasury, 852 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. 2014), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer's use of the Compact's three-factor election for purposes of the Michigan Business Tax (MBT). For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Michigan Supreme Court Allows Multistate Tax Compact Three-Factor Apportionment Election for 2008 MBT Return. However, the state of Michigan promptly enacted legislation that retroactively repealed the Compact and may have eliminated virtually all rights to refunds. Act 282 (S.B. 156), Laws 2014. For further discussion of this Michigan legislation, see GT SALT Alert: Michigan Enacts Legislation Designed to Eliminate Multistate Tax Compact Apportionment Election Refunds Allowed by IBM Case.

19 Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, California Supreme Court, No. S206587.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.