Finishing SALT: Inside SALT’s Monthly Recap

Wrapping Up June

Our June 2017 blog posts are available on insidesalt.com, or read each article by clicking on the titles below. To receive the latest on state and local tax news and commentary directly in your inbox as they are posted, click here to subscribe to our email list.

June 5, 2017: Nexus is Crucial, Complex Connection for State Tax Professionals

June 6, 2017: Substitute Alert – Delaware Technical Corrections Bill

June 8, 2017: Inside SALT Event in McDermott Will & Emery’s New York Office

New York, NY: The annual Inside SALT event took place on Thursday, June 8, 2017 in McDermott’s New York office. Tax lawyers Peter Faber, Todd Harrison, Stephen Kranz, Alysse McLoughlin, Art Rosen, Diann Smith and Mark Yopp presented a substantive half-day program highlighting many State and Local Tax updates, including recent changes specific to the New York area, Nexus developments in digital taxation, and news related to apportionment, transfer pricing and unclaimed property. The event had a successful turnout, with tax executives from many of McDermott’s top clients, and culminated in a networking reception.

June 8, 2017: Tax in the City® Event in McDermott Will & Emery’s Chicago Office

Established in 2014 by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Tax in the City® is a discussion and networking group for women in tax that fosters collaboration and mentorship and facilitates in-person connections and roundtable study group events around the country.

McDermott’s second Tax in the City® meeting of the year took place on Thursday, June 8, 2017 in the Chicago office. The event began with a CLE/CPE presentation on Privilege and the Ethics of Connectivity. After a break for lunch and networking around the room, the program continued with a roundtable discussion focusing on best practices for drafting tax provisions in commercial contracts. Kristen Hazel spoke about drafting Letters of Intent, then Britt Haxton covered credit agreements, Sandra McGill covered withholding tax provisions, and Jane May wrapped up with settlement agreements.  Following that discussion, Mary Kay Martire passed our continuing discussion of the Illinois Grand Bargain over to Carol Portman, McDermott Alum and President of the Taxpayers Federation of Illinois, who shared with us some insights into the Illinois budget stalemate. The event concluded with Sandra McGill offering her insights into tax reform, as well as Kristen Hazel’s thoughts on preparing for new rules effective in 2018. The roundtable event aided great networking and conversations, and saw an impressive turnout with female tax leaders from many of McDermott’s client companies.

Continue Reading

Illinois Unclaimed Property Law Substantially Revised As Part of Revenue Package Supporting Illinois Budget

Yesterday the Illinois House of Representatives voted to override Governor Bruce Rauner’s veto of Senate Bill (SB) 9, the revenue bill supporting the State’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018 Budget. Just days before the vote, SB 9 was amended to include a revised version of the Illinois Unclaimed Property Bill (House Bill (HB) 2603) on which we’ve previously reported. The new law (part of Public Act 100-0022) is known as the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (RUUPA). The RUUPA becomes effective January 1, 2018. Below is a brief summary of a few of the highlights of which holders should be aware.

Gift Cards, Loyalty Cards and Game-Related Digital Content Exempt

Unlike HB 2603, the Illinois RUUPA expressly excludes “gift cards” from the definition of “property” subject to escheat. Pulling (in-part) from the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) definition, “gift card” is defined in the Illinois RUUPA as “a stored-value card: (i) issued on a prepaid basis in a specified amount; (ii) the value of which does not expire; (iii) that is not subject to a dormancy, inactivity, or service fee; (iv) that may be decreased in value only by redemption for merchandise, goods, or services upon presentation at a single merchant or an affiliated group of merchants; and (v) that, unless required by law, may not be redeemed for or converted into money or otherwise monetized by the issuer.” Continue Reading

Tax Changes Implemented As Part of Revenue Package Supporting Illinois Budget

Yesterday afternoon, after months of wrangling and a marathon 4th of July weekend session, the Illinois House of Representatives voted to override Governor Bruce Rauner’s veto of Senate Bill (SB) 9, the revenue bill supporting the State’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018 Budget. The vote ended Illinois’ two year budget impasse and may avoid a threatened downgrade of Illinois bonds to junk status. The key tax components of the bill as enacted Public Act 100-0022 (Act) are as follows:

Income Tax

Rate increase. Income tax rates are increased, effective July 1, 2017, to 4.95 percent for individuals, trusts and estates, and 7 percent for corporations.

Income allocation. The Act contains a number of provisions intended to resolve questions regarding how income should be allocated between the two rates in effect for 2017.

  • Illinois Income Tax Act (IITA) 5/202.5(a) provides a default rule, a proration based on the days in each period (181/184), for purposes of allocating income between pre-July 1 segments and periods after the end of June when rates increase. Alternatively, IITA 5/202.5(b) provides that a taxpayer may elect to determine net income on a specific accounting basis for the two portions of their taxable year, from the beginning of the taxable year through the last day of the apportionment period, and from the first day of the next apportionment period through the end of the taxable year.

Continue Reading

Connecticut Will Make You Disclose Personal Customer Data!

The Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS) recently issued demand letters to many remote sellers requiring that they either: (a) provide electronic sales records for all individual sales shipped to a Connecticut address over the past three calendar years; or (b) register to collect and remit Connecticut sales and use tax. This action is consistent with statements made by DRS Commissioner, Kevin Sullivan, via a press release in March and more recently at a Federation of Tax Administrator’s (FTA) presentation on the topic two weeks ago. Sullivan’s comments at the FTA meeting indicated that state tax administrators “will move from hoping Congress will help” to taking action into their own hands.

For remote sellers with no physical presence in Connecticut that don’t wish to voluntarily collect and remit sales and use tax (consistent with the US Supreme Court’s precedent in Quill and Bellas Hess), they are given only one option–provide DRS with a semi-colon delimited text file containing 16 fields of data–including customer names, customer addresses, ship to addresses, item descriptions and quantities sold. But supplying such personal data about customers intrudes upon the privacy and First Amendment rights of the customer, and unconstitutionally deprives remote sellers of their property right in the data set without due process of law. Of equal concern, some sellers question whether DRS is appropriately limited in its ability to disclose or share the customer data it seeks. Continue Reading

Favorable Guidance from the New Jersey Tax Court on the ‘Unreasonable’ Exception to the Related-Party Intangible Expense Add-back

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Tax Court provided some long-awaited guidance on the “unreasonable” exception to the state’s related-party intangible expense add-back provision. In BMC Software, Inc v. Div. of Taxation, No 000403-2012 (2017), the Tax Court held that payments made by a subsidiary to its parent for a software distribution license were intangible expenses that were subject to the add-back provision, but that the statutory exception for “unreasonable” adjustments applied so that the subsidiary was able to deduct the expenses in computing its Corporation Business Tax (CBT). The court first determined that the expense was an intangible expense and not the sale of tangible personal property between the entities because the contract specifically called the fee a royalty, the parent reported the income as royalty income and the parent retained full ownership of the intellectual property rights indicating that no sale had taken place. Thus, the court determined that the intangible expense add-back provision did apply. The most interesting aspect of this case, however, was the court’s application of the “unreasonable” exception to the intangible expense add-back provision because that had not yet been addressed by the courts in New Jersey.

The Tax Court established two critical points with respect to the add-back of related-party intangible expenses: first, that the “unreasonable” exception does not require a showing that the related-party recipient paid CBT on the income from the taxpayer; and secondly, that a showing that the related-party transaction was “substantively equivalent” to a transaction with an unrelated party is sufficient evidence that the add-back is “unreasonable.” Continue Reading

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Repeals Directive 17-1

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) has just issued Directive 17-2 revoking Directive 17-1 which adopted an economic nexus standard for sales tax purposes. Directive 17-2 states that the revocation is in anticipation of the Department proposing a regulation that would presumably adopt the standards of Directive 17-1. It appears that the Department took seriously, perhaps among other concerns, internet sellers’ arguments that Directive 17-1 was an improperly promulgated rule. Internet sellers that recently received letters from the Department regarding Directive 17-1 (see our previous blog post) may need to reconsider their approach.

Massachusetts DOR Sending Letters to Sellers Regarding July 1 Effective Date of Economic Nexus Directive

Recently, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (Department) sent letters to several companies regarding Directive 17-1. The Directive announces a “rule” requiring remote internet sellers to register for and begin collecting Massachusetts sales and use tax (sales tax) by July 1, 2017, if they had more than $500,000 in Massachusetts sales during the preceding year. The legal premise behind the rule is that the Department believes sellers with more than $500,000 in annual Massachusetts sales must have more than a de minimis physical presence so that requiring sales tax collection would not be prohibited by Quill Corp v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992). The Directive’s examples of such physical presence include the presence of cookies on purchasers’ computers, use of third-party carriers to make white-glove deliveries and the use of online marketplaces to sell products. The Directive also states that sellers who fail to collect tax beginning July 1, 2017 will be subject to interest and penalties (plus, of course, any uncollected taxes).

We think the Directive is contrary to law on three main grounds. First, we believe that the items that the Department asserts create physical presence are insufficient to establish more than a de minimis physical presence. For example, the presence of cookies on computers in a state appears to be less of a physical presence than the floppy disks the seller in Quill sent into North Dakota (which were used by its customers to place orders) that the United States Supreme Court viewed as de minimis. Second, the Directive violates the state administrative procedures act because it constitutes an administrative rule that was not validly adopted. Third, the Directive’s rule violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act, a federal statute, because the rule discriminates against internet sellers.

By its own terms, the Directive applies only prospectively. The Directive does not assert a blanket rule that internet sellers are liable for sales tax for periods prior to July 1, 2017, if they met a certain sales threshold. The risks from non-collection for such periods are dependent on a company’s specific facts. The letters advise sellers that they may be eligible for voluntary disclosure for such prior periods.

Companies have two general options: (1) register and begin collecting or (2) not register or collect. Litigation has been brought on behalf of a number of sellers to challenge the Directive on the grounds identified above. One important aspect of that litigation is the request for an injunction barring the enforcement of the Directive pending a court decision; an injunction would likely prompt many sellers to take a “wait and see” approach. Ultimately, sellers must make a business decision based on their own facts and business circumstances.

Illinois Appellate Court Blows the Whistle on Serial Relator

In a bombshell opinion, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a law firm serving both as client and attorney may not recover statutory attorneys’ fees under the Illinois False Claims Act (the Act). In People ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 152668 (June 15, 2017), the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees in excess of $600,000 for work performed by Diamond’s law firm on behalf of itself as the relator. McDermott represents My Pillow in this matter.

Much like its federal counterpart, the Act allows private citizens (referred to as relators) to file fraud claims on behalf of the state of Illinois. If successful, relators can collect up to 30 percent of the damages award plus attorneys’ fees. The Diamond firm is hardly a traditional “whistleblower” with “inside knowledge,” as it has filed approximately 1,000 different qui tam actions as the relator over the last 15 years. The firm initially focused its suits on out-of-state businesses for allegedly knowingly failing to collect Illinois use tax on merchandise delivered to Illinois customers, then expanded its dragnet to allege a knowing failure to collect tax on shipping and handling charges associated with merchandise shipped to Illinois. The firm then targeted out-of-state liquor retailers for alleged knowing nonpayment of certain taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages to Illinois residents and, most recently, the firm filed over 80 lawsuits targeting tailors based in Hong Kong and London, making similar claims for not collecting Illinois use tax.

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS: Expanded “Physical Presence” Codification Bill Introduced in House

On, June 12, 2017, the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017 was introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as one of seven original co-sponsors. As described in detail below, the scope and applicability of the “physical presence” requirement in the 2017 bill is significantly broader than the first iteration of the bill that was introduced last year. Not only does the bill expand the physical presence rule to all taxes, it expands the rule to all regulations.

2016 Bill

In July 2016, Congressman Sensenbrenner introduced the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2016 (H.R. 5893) in the US House of Representatives. The bill provided that states and localities could not: (1) obligate a person to collect a sales, use or similar tax; (2) obligate a person to report sales; (3) assess a tax on a person; or (4) treat the person as doing business in a state or locality for purposes of such tax unless the person has a physical presence in the jurisdiction during the calendar quarter that the obligation or assessment is imposed. “Similar tax” meant a tax that is imposed on the sale or use of a product or service.

Under the 2016 bill, persons would have a physical presence only if the person: (1) owns or leases real or tangible personal property (other than software) in the state; (2) has one or more employees, agents or independent contractors in the state specifically soliciting product or service orders from customers in the state or providing design, installation or repair services there; or (3) maintains an office in-state with three or more employees for any purpose. The bill provided that “physical presence” did not include the following: (1) click-through referral agreements with in-state persons who receive commissions for referring customers to the seller; (2) presence for less than 15 days in a taxable year; (3) product delivery provided by a common carrier; or (4) internet advertising services not exclusively directed towards, or exclusively soliciting in-state customers.

The bill did not define the term “seller,” but did provide that “seller” did not include a: (1) marketplace provider (specifically defined); (2) referrer (specifically defined); (3) carrier, in which the seller does not have an ownership interest, providing transportation or delivery of tangible personal property; or (4) credit card issuer, transaction billing processor or other financial intermediary. Under the 2016 bill, persons not considered “sellers” (e.g., marketplace providers) were protected as well because the bill provided that a state may not impose a collection or reporting obligation or assess tax on “any person other than a purchaser or seller having a physical presence in the State.”

2017 Bill

The scope of the 2017 bill is significantly broader than the bill introduced in 2016 and would require a person to have “physical presence” in a state before the state can “tax or regulate [the] person’s activity in interstate commerce.” (emphasis added) The new bill applies the “physical presence” requirement to sales and use tax, as well as net income and other business activities taxes, and also the states’ ability to “regulate” interstate commerce. “Regulate” means “to impose a standard or requirement on the production, manufacture or post-sale disposal of any product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce as a condition of sale in a state when: (1) such production or manufacture occurs outside the state; (2) such requirement is in addition to the requirements applicable to such production or manufacture pursuant to federal law and the laws of the state and locality in which the production or manufacture occurs; (3) such imposition is not otherwise expressly permitted by federal law; and (4) such requirement is enforced by a state’s executive branch or its agents or contractors.”

The definition of “physical presence” in the 2017 bill is different from the definition in the 2016 bill. Under the 2017 bill, a person would have a “physical presence” in a state if during the calendar year the person: (1) maintained its commercial or legal domicile in the state; (2) owned or leased real or tangible personal property (other than software) in the state; (3) has one or more employees, agents or independent contractors in the state providing design, installation or repair services on behalf of a remote seller; (4) has one or more employees, exclusive agents or exclusive independent contracts in the state who engage in activities that substantially assist the person to establish or maintain a market in the state; or (5) regularly employs three or more employees in the state.

The 2016 bill did not include maintaining a commercial or legal domicile in the state in the definition of “physical presence.” Additionally, under the 2016 bill, a person who had three or more employees performing activities (other than solicitation of sales, design, installation or repair services) in a state was physically present in the state only if the person also maintained an office in the state. Under the 2017 bill, there is no requirement that the person also maintain an office in the state.  Additionally, the 2017 bill provides that a person has “physical presence” in a state if it has one or more employees, exclusive agents or exclusive independent contracts in the state who engage in activities that substantially assist the person to establish or maintain a market in the state. The 2016 bill did not require that the agents and independent contractors be “exclusive”—thus, the 2017 bill limits the scope of this provision. The 2017 bill also requires that the employees, agents or independent contractors “maintain a marketplace” for the seller in the state (rather than solicit the sale of product or service orders as in the 2016 bill).

In addition to the activities not considered “physical presence” under the 2016 bill, the 2017 bill also provides that “physical presence” does not include the following: (1) ownership by a person outside of the state of an interest in a LLC or similar entity organized or with a physical presence in the state; (2) the furnishing of information to people in the state or the gathering of information from people in the state, provided the information is used or disseminated from outside of the state; and (3) activities related to the person’s potential or actual purchase of goods or services in the state if the final decision to purchase is made out of the state. Additionally, the 2017 bill provides that product delivery by a carrier or other service provider (not just a common carrier as in the 2016 bill) will not be considered “physical presence.”

The 2017 bill has the same protections for non-sellers as the 2016 bill.  While the 2017 bill still excludes “marketplace providers” (defined substantially the same) from the definition of “seller” (protecting them from a tax or collection obligation as a non-seller), it adds a new carve out for sales through the marketplace of products owned by the marketplace provider. In this instance, the marketplace provider would be the “seller,” and a tax or collection obligation would be permitted if the marketplace provider has a “physical presence” in the jurisdiction.

As introduced, the 2017 bill would apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after January 1, 2018.

Practice Note

If passed, the 2017 bill would have an enormous impact not just on taxes, but on all regulation of business activities by states. Last year’s bill was an attempt to codify and define the Quill physical presence rule and preempt state nexus legislation. The 2017 bill does the same; it codifies the Quill physical presence rule which would not only legislatively enact and define Quill, but also preempt many of the state attempts to expand physical presence nexus, including click-through, marketplace nexus and economic nexus.

However, the 2017 bill goes even further. It would expand the physical presence rule to all other taxes, including business activity and net income taxes. This is similar to the rule that would have been established under the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (BATSA) introduced as H.R. 2584 in the last congressional session.

But the 2017 bill goes even beyond BATSA, prohibiting any regulation by a state over a person or business unless that person or business has physical presence in the state. This expansion is likely related to a fight between states that has been progressing through the courts. California has a law that requires eggs sold in California to be laid by hens in cages that are of a specific size. Missouri and other states sued to invalidate California’s law, but lost in the 9th Circuit and certiorari was denied by the US Supreme Court on May 30, 2017. Thus, the 2017 bill is unlike anything seen before in the tax context—and the impact, whether enacted or not, remains to be seen.

Update on Illinois Legislative Session

On May 31, the Illinois General Assembly closed its regular legislative session, without a budget agreement.

Senate Bill 9

As we previously reported, the Senate passed a modified version of Senate Bill 9 (Bill), a tax proposal that is part of the Illinois “Grand Bargain” that we described in a previous post. The version of Senate Bill 9 that passed out of the Senate passed the House Revenue Committee on May 29 on a partisan vote. The House has extended the Bill’s final action deadline to June 30.

The current version of the Bill is similar but not identical to the version that we have previously described. Some of the more significant amendments include the following:

Two New Taxes. The Bill now proposes to create two new taxes. The “Video Service Tax Modernization Act” purports to impose a tax on satellite television and streaming television services at a rate of 5 percent of the gross revenues that a provider earns from its Illinois customers. The Bill also creates the “Entertainment Tax Fairness Act” which seeks to tax viewing “entertainment,” defined as “paid video programming whether transmitted by cable service, direct-to-home satellite service, direct broadcast satellite service, digital audio-visual works service, or video service.” The tax rate is 1 percent of charges paid by the customer. Both taxes exempt satellite or subscription radio services and can be passed-through and collected from customers.

Income Tax. The Bill now proposes to increase income tax rates for individuals, trusts and estates to 4.95 percent (rather than the previously proposed 4.99 percent rate). Also, the tax rate increases, including the increase to 7 percent for corporations (corporate increase unchanged from the Bill’s prior version), continue to be permanent.

Sales Tax Base Expansion. The current version of the Bill removes repair and maintenance services, landscaping services, cable television services (but see “Two New Taxes” described above) and some personal care services (including nails and hair removal) from the Bill’s expansion of the Illinois sales tax base.

It is difficult to predict whether any portion of Senate Bill 9 will be enacted. Since the Illinois General Assembly’s regular sessions have now ended, legislative approval will require a three-fifths majority and, to date, the governor has refused to endorse the legislation.

Senate Bill 1577

We have previously reported on Senate Bill 1577, which proposes to increase the penalty amounts imposed for violation of the Illinois False Claims Act. The bill passed the House on May 30 with the exception for certain low dollar tax claims as previously described.

LexBlog