(e) License
of Intangible Property where Substance of Transaction Resembles a Sale of Goods
or Services.
(A) In general. In some cases,
the license of intangible property will resemble the sale of an
electronically-delivered good or service rather than the license of a marketing
intangible or a production intangible. In these cases, the receipts from the
licensing transaction are assigned by applying the rules set forth in sections
(4)(c)(B)(ii) and (iii) of this rule, as if the transaction were a service
delivered to an individual or business customer or delivered electronically
through an individual or business customer, as applicable. Examples of
transactions to be assigned under section (5)(e) of this rule include, without
limitation, the license of database access, the license of access to
information, the license of digital goods (see section (7)(b) of this rule),
and the license of certain software (e.g., where the transaction is not the
license of pre-written software that is treated as the sale of tangible
personal property, see section (7)(a) of this rule).
(B) Sublicenses. Pursuant to section
(5)(e)(A) of this rule, the rules of section (4)(c)(B)(iii) of this rule may
apply where a taxpayer licenses intangible property to a customer that in turn
sublicenses the intangible property to end users as if the transaction were a
service delivered electronically through a customer to end users. In
particular, the rules set forth at section (4)(c)(B)(iii) of this rule that
apply to services delivered electronically to a customer for purposes of resale
and subsequent electronic delivery in substantially identical form to end users
or other recipients may also apply with respect to licenses of intangible
property for purposes of sublicense to end users. For this purpose, the
intangible property sublicensed to an end user shall not fail to be
substantially identical to the property that was licensed to the sublicensor
merely because the sublicense transfers a reduced bundle of rights with respect
to that property (e.g., because the sublicensee's rights are limited to its own
use of the property and do not include the ability to grant a further
sublicense), or because that property is bundled with additional services or
items of property.
(C) Examples:
In these examples, unless otherwise stated assume that the customer is not a
related party
Example 33:Crayon
Corp and Dealer Co enter into a license contract under which Dealer Co as
licensee is permitted to use trademarks that are owned by Crayon Corp in
connection with Dealer Co's sale of certain products to retail customers. Under
the contract, Dealer Co is required to pay Crayon Corp a licensing fee that is
a fixed percentage of the total volume of monthly sales made by Dealer Co of
products using the Crayon Corp trademarks. Under the contract, Dealer Co is
permitted to sell the products at multiple store locations, including store
locations that are both within and without Oregon. Further, the licensing fees
that are paid by Dealer Co are broken out on a per store basis. The licensing
fees paid to Crayon Corp by Dealer Co represent fees from the license of a
marketing intangible. The portion of the fees to be assigned to Oregon are
determined by multiplying the fees by a percentage that reflects the ratio of
Dealer Co's receipts that are derived from its Oregon stores relative to Dealer
Co's total receipts. See section (5)(b) of this rule.
Example 34: Program Corp, a
corporation that is based outside Oregon, licenses programming that it owns to
licensees, such as cable networks, that in turn will offer the programming to
their customers on television or other media outlets in Oregon and in all other
U.S. states. Each of these licensing contracts constitutes the license of a
marketing intangible. For each licensee, assuming that Program Corp lacks
evidence of the actual number of viewers of the programming in Oregon, the
component of the licensing fee paid to Program Corp by the licensee that
constitutes Program Corp's Oregon receipts is determined by multiplying the
amount of the licensing fee by a percentage that reflects the ratio of the
Oregon audience of the licensee for the programming relative to the licensee's
total U.S. audience for the programming. See section (5)(e) of this rule. Note
that the analysis and result as to the state or states to which receipts are
properly assigned would be the same to the extent that the substance of Program
Corp's licensing transactions may be determined to resemble a sale of goods or
services, instead of the license of a marketing intangible. See section (5)(e)
of this rule. This example is intended to illustrate how sales are sourced
under ORS 314.665 but does not control to
the extent the provisions of ORS
314.680 to ORS
314.690 apply.
Example 35: Moniker Corp enters
into a license contract with Wholesale Co. Pursuant to the contract, Wholesale
Co is granted the right to use trademarks owned by Moniker Corp to brand sports
equipment that is to be manufactured by Wholesale Co or an unrelated entity,
and to sell the manufactured equipment to unrelated companies that will
ultimately market the equipment to consumers in a specific geographic region,
including a foreign country. The license agreement confers a license of a
marketing intangible, even though the trademarks in question will be affixed to
property to be manufactured. In addition, the license of the marketing
intangible is for the right to use the intangible property in connection with
sales to be made at wholesale rather than directly to retail customers. The
component of the licensing fee that constitutes the Oregon receipts of Moniker
Corp is determined by multiplying the amount of the fee by a percentage that
reflects the ratio of the Oregon population in the specific geographic region
relative to the total population in that region. See section (5)(b) of this
rule. If Moniker Corp is able to reasonably establish that the marketing
intangible was materially used throughout a foreign country, then the
population of that country will be included in the population ratio
calculation. However, if Moniker Corp is unable to reasonably establish that
the marketing intangible was materially used in the foreign country in areas
outside a particular major city, then none of the foreign country's population
beyond the population of the major city is include in the population ratio
calculation.
Example
36: Formula, Inc and Appliance Co enter into a
license contract under which Appliance Co is permitted to use a patent owned by
Formula, Inc to manufacture appliances. The license contract specifies that
Appliance Co is to pay Formula, Inc a royalty that is a fixed percentage of the
gross receipts from the products that are later sold. The contract does not
specify any other fees. The appliances are both manufactured and sold in Oregon
and several other states. Assume the licensing fees are paid for the license of
a production intangible, even though the royalty is to be paid based upon the
sales of a manufactured product (i.e., the license is not one that includes a
marketing intangible). Because the department can reasonably establish that the
actual use of the intangible property takes place in part in Oregon, the
royalty is assigned based to the location of that use rather than to location
of the licensee's commercial domicile, in accordance with section (5)(a) of
this rule. It is presumed that the entire use is in Oregon except to the extent
that the taxpayer can demonstrate that the actual location of some or all of
the use takes place outside Oregon. Assuming that Formula, Inc can demonstrate
the percentage of manufacturing that takes place in Oregon using the patent
relative to the manufacturing in other states, that percentage of the total
licensing fee paid to Formula, Inc under the contract will constitute Formula,
Inc's Oregon receipts. See section (5)(e) of this rule.
Example 37: Axel Corp enters
into a license agreement with Biker Co in which Biker Co is granted the right
to produce motor scooters using patented technology owned by Axel Corp, and
also to sell the scooters by marketing the fact that the scooters were
manufactured using the special technology. The contract is a license of both a
marketing and production intangible, i.e., a mixed intangible. The scooters are
manufactured outside Oregon. Assume that Axel Corp lacks actual information
regarding the proportion of Biker Co.'s receipts that are derived from Oregon
customers. Also assume that Biker Co is granted the right to sell the scooters
in a U.S. geographic region in which the Oregon population constitutes 25
percent of the total population during the period in question. The licensing
contract requires an upfront licensing fee to be paid by Biker Co to Axel Corp
and does not specify what percentage of the fee derives from Biker Co's right
to use Axel Corp's patented technology. Because the fees for the license of the
marketing and production intangible are not separately and reasonably stated in
the contract, it is presumed that the licensing fees are paid entirely for the
license of a marketing intangible, unless either the taxpayer or the department
reasonably establishes otherwise. Assuming that neither party establishes
otherwise, 25 percent of the licensing fee constitutes Oregon receipts. See
sections (5)(b) and (d) of this rule.
Example
38
: Same facts as Example 37, except that the license
contract specifies separate fees to be paid for the right to produce the motor
scooters and for the right to sell the scooters by marketing the fact that the
scooters were manufactured using the special technology. The licensing contract
constitutes both the license of a marketing intangible and the license of a
production intangible. Assuming that the separately stated fees are reasonable,
the department will:
(1) assign no part of the
licensing fee paid for the production intangible to Oregon, and
(2) assign 25 percent of the licensing fee
paid for the marketing intangible to Oregon. See section (5)(d) of this
rule.
Example
39: Better Burger Corp, which is based outside
Oregon, enters into franchise contracts with franchisees that agree to operate
Better Burger restaurants as franchisees in various states. Several of the
Better Burger Corp franchises are in Oregon. In each case, the franchise
contract between the individual and Better Burger provides that the franchisee
is to pay Better Burger Corp an upfront fee for the receipt of the franchise
and monthly franchise fees, which cover, among other things, the right to use
the Better Burger name and service marks, food processes, and cooking know-how,
as well as fees for management services. The upfront fees for the receipt of
the Oregon franchises constitute fees paid for the licensing of a marketing
intangible. These fees constitute Oregon receipts because the franchises are
for the right to make Oregon sales. The monthly franchise fees paid by Oregon
franchisees constitute fees paid for (1) the license of marketing intangibles
(the Better Burger name and service marks), (2) the license of production
intangibles (food processes and know-how), and (3) personal services
(management fees). The fees paid for the license of the marketing intangibles
and the production intangibles constitute Oregon receipts because in each case
the use of the intangibles is to take place in Oregon. See sections (5)(b)-(c)
of this rule. The fees paid for the personal services are to be assigned
pursuant to section (4) of this rule.
Example
40: Online Corp, a corporation based outside Oregon,
licenses an information database through the means of the Internet to
individual customers that are resident in Oregon and in other states. These
customers access Online Corp's information database primarily in their states
of residence and sometimes while traveling in other states. The license is a
license of intangible property that resembles a sale of goods or services and
are assigned in accordance with section (5)(e) of this rule. If Online Corp can
determine or reasonably approximate the state or states where its database is
accessed, it must do so. Assuming that Online Corp cannot determine or
reasonably approximate the location where its database is accessed, Online Corp
must assign the receipts made to the individual customers using the customers'
billing addresses to the extent known. Assume for purposes of this example that
Online Corp knows the billing address for each of its customers. In this case,
Online Corp's receipts from sales made to its individual customers are in
Oregon in any case in which the customer's billing address is in Oregon. See
section (4)(c)(B)(ii)(I) of this rule.
Example
41: Net Corp, a corporation based outside Oregon,
licenses an information database through the means of the Internet to a
business customer, Business Corp, a company with offices in Oregon and two
neighboring states. The license is a license of intangible property that
resembles a sale of goods or services and are assigned in accordance with
section (5)(e) of this rule. Assume that Net Corp cannot determine where its
database is accessed but reasonably approximates that 75 percent of Business
Corp's database access took place in Oregon, and 25 percent of Business Corp's
database access took place in other states. In that case, 75 percent of the
receipts from database access is in Oregon. Assume alternatively that Net Corp
lacks sufficient information regarding the location where its database is
accessed to reasonably approximate the location. Under these circumstances, if
Net Corp derives five percent or less of its receipts from database access from
Business Corp, Net Corp must assign the receipts under section
(4)(c)(B)(ii)(II) of this rule to the state where Business Corp principally
managed the contract, or if that state is not reasonably determinable, to the
state where Business Corp placed the order for the services, or if that state
is not reasonably determinable, to the state of Business Corp's billing
address. If Net Corp derives more than five percent of its receipts from
database access from Business Corp, Net Corp is required to identify the state
in which its contract of sale is principally managed by Business Corp and must
assign the receipts to that state. See section (4)(c)(B)(ii)(II) of this
rule.
Example 42: Net
Corp, a corporation based outside Oregon, licenses an information database
through the means of the Internet to more than 250 individual and business
customers in Oregon and in other states. The license is a license of intangible
property that resembles a sale of goods or services, and receipts from that
license are assigned in accordance with section (5)(e) of this rule. Assume
that Net Corp cannot determine or reasonably approximate the location where its
information database is accessed. Also assume that Net Corp does not derive
more than five percent of its receipts from sales of database access from any
single customer. Net Corp may apply the safe harbor stated in section
(4)(c)(B)(ii)(II)(II-d) of this rule and may assign its receipts to a state or
states using each customer's billing address.
Example 43: Web Corp, a
corporation based outside of Oregon, licenses an Internet-based information
database to business customers who then sublicense the database to individual
end users that are resident in Oregon and in other states. These end users
access Web Corp's information database primarily in their states of residence
and sometimes while traveling in other states. Web Corp's license of the
database to its customers includes the right to sublicense the database to end
users, while the sublicenses provide that the rights to access and use the
database are limited to the end users' own use and prohibit the individual end
users from further sublicensing the database. Web Corp receives a fee from each
customer based upon the number of sublicenses issued to end users. The license
is a license of intangible property that resembles a sale of goods or services
and are assigned by applying the rules set forth in section (4)(c)(B)(iii) of
this rule. See section (5)(e) of this rule. If Web Corp can determine or
reasonably approximate the state or states where its database is accessed by
end users, it must do so. Assuming that Web Corp lacks sufficient information
from which it can determine or reasonably approximate the location where its
database is accessed by end users, Web Corp must approximate the extent to
which its database is accessed in Oregon using a percentage that represents the
ratio of the Oregon population in the specific geographic area in which Web
Corp's customer sublicenses the database access relative to the total
population in that area. See section (4)(c)(B)(iii)(III) of this
rule.