United States: Oregon Supreme Court Requires Use Of Transaction-Based Approach To Calculate Cost Of Performance For Sales Factor Purposes

On September 11, 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court held that under the cost of performance (COP) method for sourcing sales other than sales of tangible personal property, sales should be sourced using a transactional rather than an operational approach.1 In affirming the Oregon Tax Court, the Supreme Court held that the definition of "income-producing activity" as it applies to a COP analysis relates to individual sales to customers. As a result, only direct costs associated with the individual transactions should be considered.


AT&T, a global telecommunications company, operated its administrative headquarters and Global Network Operations Center in New Jersey during the relevant tax years. From this location, AT&T provided long-distance and international exchange services that connected users in Oregon with users in other states or countries. AT&T did not extend its physical network to the actual homes of its customers. Instead, AT&T provided service from and to points of presence, with "last-mile service" provided by local exchange carriers (LECs) to AT&T's ultimate customers, including customers in Oregon. During the years at issue, AT&T maintained a major piece of switching equipment used in the process of completing all types of calls. Upon the passage of a call to or from a customer's location, AT&T paid an access charge to the appropriate LEC for the "last-mile service."

For the relevant tax years, AT&T filed corporate excise (income) tax returns that sourced sales to Oregon. AT&T filed refund claims for the 1996 through 1999 tax years that used a network-based or operational approach in applying the "income-producing activity" used to source sales of interstate and international telephone and data transmissions. According to AT&T, its income-producing activity was the operation of a global telecommunications network. AT&T supported its refund claims with a detailed cost study that compared its costs incurred in Oregon to those incurred in New Jersey. This study showed that the costs incurred in New Jersey exceeded the costs incurred in Oregon in every instance. Because the greatest portion of the COP was located in New Jersey, not Oregon, AT&T argued that none of its relevant sales revenue should be sourced to Oregon.

The Oregon Department of Revenue rejected the refund claims and argued for a transaction-based application of "income-producing activity." Under this approach, the Department considered the activity that produced each individual interstate and international telephone and data transmission billed to an Oregon customer. Because the majority of these specific costs related to each individual transaction in question was incurred in Oregon, the Department argued that the sales should be sourced to Oregon. The Department contended that AT&T's tax liability would remain unchanged from its initial tax returns. AT&T appealed the Department's rejection of its refund claims to the Oregon Tax Court.

The Oregon Tax Court agreed with the Department and denied AT&T's request for a refund.2 According to the Tax Court, Oregon's apportionment statutes and administrative rules required a three-step analysis: (i) determine the items that are included in "incomeproducing activity;" (ii) determine the gross receipts from that transaction; and (iii) determine where the direct COP occurred geographically. Regarding the first step, the Tax Court held that the statute and administrative rules required a focus on individual transactions with customers, but AT&T had focused on entire groups or classes of transactions. As a result, AT&T's cost study did not identify the correct income-producing activity and thus distorted its COP calculation. AT&T subsequently filed an appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court.

Oregon Requires Use of Transactional Approach

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court's decision and agreed that AT&T must use a transactional, rather than operational, approach to source the sales. Because AT&T's cost study used an operational or network approach, it did not correctly calculate the COP for the correct income-producing activities. Therefore, the Court held that AT&T failed to meet its burden of proof that it was entitled to a refund.

Sales Factor Sourcing Statute

Oregon follows the traditional apportionment methodology of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) that was adopted as Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact.3 Sales of tangible personal property are sourced to Oregon if the property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser in the state.4 The Court explained that this statute focuses on individual sales to purchasers and generally reflects the state's contribution as a market toward the taxpayer's income. Also, a sale of tangible personal property is sourced to Oregon if the property is shipped from Oregon and: (i) the purchaser is the U.S. government; or (ii) the taxpayer is not taxable in the state of the purchaser (this is known as a throwback rule).5 The Court focused on the throwback rule and noted that UDITPA emphasized the interest of making all of the taxpayer's income taxable somewhere over reflecting the market state's contribution to the transaction.

Sales other than sales of tangible personal property are sourced to Oregon if: (i) the income-producing activity is performed in the state; or (ii) the income-producing activity is performed both in and outside Oregon and a greater proportion of the income-producing activity is performed in Oregon than in any other state, based on COP.6 The Court explained that the application of this statute depends largely on the precise meanings of "income-producing activity" and "costs of performance." The Department argued that the activity is transaction focused and applies to each individual telephone call or separate monthly billing. In contrast, AT&T contended that the term refers to broad portions of its business. If this system-based or network-based interpretation were accepted, large portions of revenue would be sourced to a single state.

The Court made two observations about the text of the Oregon statute for apportioning sales other than sales of tangible personal property. First, AT&T correctly noted that the provision does not look to the market where the sales occur. Rather than considering the location of the taxpayer's customers, the statute looks to where the taxpayer effectively produces the income. Second, the statute seems to connect the term "income-producing activity" with particular "sales." This interpretation would parallel the statutory treatment of sales of tangible personal property that attributes each individual sale to a particular state. According to the Court, this implies that the income-producing activity in the statute means the activity that produces the income associated with a particular sale. However, the Court acknowledged the statute is ambiguous and this is not the only possible way to read this provision. Because there was room for doubt at the statutory level, the Court considered the Department's relevant administrative rules as a means to interpret the ambiguity.

Sales Factor Sourcing Administrative Rules

The Department adopted an administrative rule to interpret the sourcing statute that is based on a model regulation promulgated by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC).7 The rule clarifies the statute by providing that "gross receipts are attributed to this state if, with respect to a particular item of income, the income producing activity is performed within and without this state but the greater proportion of the income producing activity is performed in this state, based on costs of performance."8 The Court noted that the rule adds that an "income-producing activity" is something that generates "gross receipts" and results in an "item of income." The rule also provides that "income-producing activity" applies "to each separate item of income and means the transactions and activity directly engaged in by the taxpayer in the regular course of its trade or business for the ultimate purpose of obtaining gains or profit."9 The Department successfully argued that "item of income" means an individual exchange between a buyer and a seller. The Court held that this interpretation was plausible and not inconsistent with the statute, rule, or with any other source of law.

After identifying the income-producing activity, a determination must be made where the taxpayer performs the activity. If the income-producing activity is performed in more than state, the taxpayer must determine whether "the greater proportion of the income producing activity is performed in this state, based on costs of performance."10 This requires the taxpayer to compare the COP in different states. The administrative rule defines "cost of performance" as "direct costs determined in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and in accordance with accepted conditions or practices in the trade or business of the taxpayer."11

Taxpayer Failed to Prove Greater Part of Costs Was Incurred in Other States

In affirming the Tax Court, the Supreme Court agreed with the Department and held that a transactional approach should be used in sourcing the sales. The Court explained that AT&T was required to: (i) show the COP for each income-producing activity; and then (ii) show that the greater part of those costs had been incurred in some state other than Oregon. According to the Court, AT&T's cost study did not identify the correct incomeproducing activities. As a result, AT&T failed to provide evidence showing that, in connection with its sales of interstate and international voice and data transmission, a greater share of the COP for each income-producing activity was incurred in a state other than Oregon. The Court agreed with the Department's interpretation that was focused on individual transactions with customers. As discussed above, the administrative rule indicates that "income-producing activity" is something associated with an individual "item of income." The Court determined that the Department's interpretation of "item of income" to relate to individual sales, either per-minute charges for phone calls or flat-rate monthly subscriptions, was plausible and not inconsistent with any sources of law identified by AT&T.

The Court held that AT&T's network-focused interpretation of income-producing activity was too broad and distorted its calculation of the COP. The direct costs of the incomeproducing activity, each individual phone call or monthly flat-rate billing, are only those incremental costs associated with each individual call or billing. AT&T's cost study included network costs, but a transaction-based interpretation of income-producing activity means that network costs do not qualify as direct costs. The Court determined that AT&T's cost study did not identify the correct income-producing activities and did not correctly calculate the COP for those activities. Therefore, AT&T did not meet its burden of proof that it was entitled to the refunds.


In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court provides guidance in interpreting a UDITPA sourcing provision that is unclear and has caused confusion for taxpayers, particularly service providers engaged in large, multistate businesses. The provision for sourcing sales other than sales of tangible personal property does not specify whether a transactional or operational approach should be used when determining "income-producing activity." After deciding that a transactional approach should be used, the Court acknowledged that this is not the only possible way to read this provision. The Court focused on the "item of income" language in the Oregon administrative rule that is based on an MTC regulation in requiring AT&T to use the transactional approach.

It has been widely discussed that Oregon and Massachusetts have reached different results on this issue. In another case involving AT&T, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a decision of the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board and held that an operational approach should be used.12 However, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue subsequently issued guidance concerning the implications of this case.13 The Department explained that the case represents a determination "in the context of one specific fact pattern."14 According to the Department, "[i]n general, the appropriateness of the transactional approach will depend on the nature of a taxpayer's activity the performance of which creates an obligation of a particular customer to pay a specific consideration."15 Thus, the Department clarified that a taxpayer's facts and circumstances should be considered in deciding which approach to use.

The conflicting approaches make it practically impossible for multistate companies to use a consistent approach in states that use COP sourcing, and this problem may have critical implications in determining the overall level of taxability in these states. Requiring companies to track and geographically determine the costs associated with each individual transaction based on the transactional approach (the approach taken by Oregon) would likely be a highly difficult task considering the volume of transactions and the multitude of locations from which calls are placed and received. For this reason, the operational approach has been used as a proxy by many companies in the absence of more detailed information. Under the operational approach, determining the overall cost associated with the operation and management of the long-distance telecommunications hub in New Jersey in comparison to costs incurred in other states is likely to be done with more ease than determining costs associated with each individual transaction under the transactional approach. Of course, the use of different approaches in this area can result in a significantly higher or lower aggregate apportionment percentage for multistate taxpayers, depending upon specific facts and circumstances.

1 AT&T Corp. v. Department of Revenue, Oregon Supreme Court, No. SC S060150, Sept. 11, 2015.

2 AT&T Corp. v. Department of Revenue, Oregon Tax Court, No. TC 4814, June 28, 2011. For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Oregon Tax Court Requires Use of Transactional Approach to Determine Sales Factor Calculation.

3 Oregon codifies UDITPA at OR. REV. STAT. §§ 314.605-314.675. In July 2014, the Multistate Tax Commission amended UDITPA and adopted a market-based sourcing approach.

4 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.665(2).

5 Id.

6 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.665(4).

7 OR. ADMIN. R. 150-314.665(4).

8 OR. ADMIN. R. 150-314.665(4)(1).

9 OR. ADMIN. R. 150-314.665(4)(2).

10 OR. REV. STAT. § 314.665(4).

11 OR. ADMIN. R. 150-314.665(4)(4).

 12 Commissioner of Revenue v. AT&T Corp., 970 N.E.2d 814 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012). Note that Massachusetts changed to market-based sourcing for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. Ch. 46 (H.B. 3535), Laws 2013.

13 Technical Information Release 13-12, Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Aug. 20, 2013.

14 Id.

15 Id.

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.