
    Argued May 2,
    affirmed June 28,
    petition for rehearing denied September 5,1973
    OLYMPIA BREWING COMPANY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent.
    
    511 P2d 837
    
      William E. Kinsey, Portland, argned the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, Portland.
    
      Walter J. Apley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argned the canse for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and Theodore W. deLooze, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
    
      Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell and Bryson, Justices.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiff taxpayer from a judgment of the Oregon Tax Court in favor of defendant Department of Revenue. 5 OTR 99 (1972).

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling beer in various states, including Oregon. The state of Oregon imposed upon plaintiff a tax under the Oregon Corporation Income Tax Law. Plaintiff contends that it is exempt under Public Law 86-272 (73 Stat 555, 15 USC § 381) on the ground that its activities in Oregon constitute nothing more than the solicitation of business.

The Department of Revenue argues that PL 86-272 is not applicable for two reasons: (1) that plaintiff was carrying on activities in Oregon consisting of something more than the solicitation of orders, such as the regular inspection of each retailer’s supply of beer in order to call his attention to a potential shortage, the efforts made by sales representatives to obtain a maximum display of Olympia advertising at each retad outlet, the efforts made to influence retaders to carry or switch to the use of Olympia draft beer, etc., and (2) the fact that plaintiff maintained in Oregon personal property in the form of beer kegs which were used by retaders in dispensing Olympia draft beer.

The Tax Court rejected defendant’s first ground, holding that plaintiff’s activities were essentially the solicitation of business. However, the court held that plaintiff’s ownership of beer kegs used in dispensing draft beer subjected plaintiff to tbe Oregon tax.

We express no opinion as to whether tbe Tax Court was correct in finding that plaintiff’s activities did not constitute tbe solicitation of business. We agree with tbe court’s conclusion that tbe presence of plaintiff’s beer kegs in Oregon for tbe purpose of dispensing Olympia beer was sufficient to make plaintiff subject to tbe Oregon Corporation Income Tax. We adopt tbe reasoning in that part of tbe Tax Court’s opinion which so bolds.

Affirmed.

Holman, J., did not participate in this decision.  