INSIDE SALT

Meaningful Statute of Limitations for Unclaimed Property Audits and Enforcement Actions? Michigan Court of Appeals Says Yes!

By Eric D. Carstens, Stephen P. Kranz and Diann Smith on Mar 10, 2023
Posted In Audits, Michigan, Nationwide Importance, Procedure, Unclaimed Property

On January 19, 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed two 2022 trial court orders, holding that initiating an unclaimed property audit does not toll (or freeze) the running of the statute of limitations (time-bar) for the Michigan State Treasurer to commence “an action or proceeding” with respect to a duty of a holder.[1] As most holders are well aware, unclaimed property audits are extremely invasive and burdensome and, unlike other types of audits conducted by states, often drag on for a decade or more before the state will issue a formal notice and demand—covering multiple years and looking back from the date of the original audit notice (often 10 or 15 years). This dynamic has created an audit framework that sets holders up for failure (really, who has complete books and records that far back?) and results in millions of unclaimed property being reported to states because of record limitations alone and third-party audit firms being handsomely paid for their time spent.

The Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision calls this entire model (some would say scheme) into question and could drastically change how holder audits look, feel and proceed in the unclaimed property world going forward. Even more importantly for holders currently under audit, these decisions could drastically narrow the scope of the open periods covered by the audit for Michigan and other states with similar unclaimed property statute of limitations.

Practice Note: While the common sense holding in this case is well established in the tax realm, it has long been the position of unclaimed property administrators and their third-party audit firms that the commencement of an audit alone freezes the statute of limitations and allows them to enforce the duties of holders looking back from that date. This (now precedential) Michigan Court of Appeals decision flies in the face of that long-standing view and calls into question whether peer states with similar unclaimed property statute of limitations are barred from enforcing transaction years being reviewed under pending audits. Because the Michigan unclaimed property statute of limitations is modeled off a provision contained in the 1981 Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (which has been adopted by many states and incorporated in the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act approved in 2016), this is not a Michigan-specific victory and one that should be explored further for holders under audit by other states as well. Showing the nationwide importance of these Michigan cases, the National Association of State Treasurers filed an amicus brief through its affiliate, the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators, with the Michigan Court of Appeals in July 2022; however, their arguments were not enough to convince the Court to modify the trial court decision interpreting the plain language of the statute of limitations and uphold the trial court ruling in favor of the holders.

The State Treasurer filed an application for leave to appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion to the Michigan Supreme Court (the state court of last resort, which has [...]

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Coupon Amounts Are Not Subtracted from Sales Tax Base Unless Sales Receipt Adequately Describes Taxable Item and Coupon

By Stephen P. Kranz, Kathleen M. Quinn and Michael J. Hilkin on Feb 24, 2023
Posted In Audits, Local Tax, Pennsylvania, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Overturning a 6-1 en banc decision by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a coupon does not reduce the price upon which sales tax must be collected unless the coupon is adequately described and “linked” with the taxable item in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (DOR) regulations. The case was brought by a retail customer seeking a sales tax refund on the difference between the retail price of the product and the discounted price as the result of a coupon. The decision instructs retailers on the application of coupon discounts when collecting sales tax. The decision may also provide comfort to retailers facing class action lawsuits in Pennsylvania for collecting sales tax on full invoice prices without taking discounts from coupons into account.

The case examined three transactions between a retailer and customer. In two of the transactions, the customer purchased a single taxable item and used a single coupon. In the other transaction, the customer purchased six taxable items and used five coupons of varying amounts. The receipt provided in each transaction identified each coupon as a “SCANNED COUP” and identified the discount provided with each coupon but did not further describe the coupon nor link the coupon as a discount to any specific item purchased. In all three transactions, the retailer collected sales tax on the full purchase price without taking the coupons into account. The customer sought a sales tax refund from the DOR, maintaining that sales tax should have been collected on the discounted price. The DOR denied the refund claim.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the DOR’s position that under Pennsylvania regulations, “sales tax is owed on the full purchase price” (disregarding any coupons) unless an invoice or receipt (1) separately states and identifies the amount of the taxable item and the coupon and (2) provides a description of both the taxable item and the coupon. Further, the Court agreed that a satisfactory description in the receipt must contain a “linking” element, meaning the coupon must be adequately described to show that it applied to a specific item. The Court explained that such a description on the receipt was necessary because, under Pennsylvania law, “there are discounts or coupons that do not establish a new [taxable] purchase price, such as a discount for shopping on a specific day, discounts from a minimum purchase amount, and sales tax absorption coupons.”

In recent years, state tax departments have been very aggressive in asserting that coupons and discounts do not reduce the sales tax base. This decision serves as a reminder to retailers that the description of coupons on invoices is critical in determining the amount of sales tax to collect. In Pennsylvania, the coupon must be separately identified and “linked” to the taxable product upon which the discount is applied.

This decision highlights the dilemma many retailers face when collecting tax on discounted products: if they collect on the full retail price, they face the potential for customer class action suits [...]

Continue Reading

Is California Picking the Pockets of Other States?

By Charles Moll, III, Elle Kaiser, Michael J. Hilkin and Marcy Jo Mandel on Oct 21, 2022
Posted In California, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

In Matter of Body Wise International LLC (OTA Case No. 19125567; 2022 – OTA – 340P), a California-based retailer collected amounts designated as “tax” related to jurisdictions where it was not registered to collect tax. The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held that the retailer must remit those amounts to California, even though the sales were not taxable in California, because the retailer did not actually pay the “tax” amounts it collected to the other states nor did it refund those amounts to its customers.

Body Wise International, LLC sold weight loss supplements to customers across the country and shipped the products directly to customers via common carrier from its warehouse in California. During the periods at issue, Body Wise’s tax software program charged a “Tax Amount” on all sales to customers located in various states based upon the respective tax rates in those other states. In states where Body Wise had not registered to charge or collect tax, Body Wise did not remit the “tax” collected to those states.

On audit, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) determined that the “Tax Amounts” Body Wise collected in those other states constituted excess sales tax reimbursements under California Revenue & Taxation Code (R&TC) section 6901.5, which provides that a retailer who collects a sales tax reimbursement exceeding the amount of the sales tax liability imposed upon the sale must remit the excess to the customer or to the state. CDTFA concluded that those amounts collected but not paid over to the other states must either be returned to the customer or remitted to California.

Upon appeal, the OTA agreed with CDTFA. OTA first observed, “it is not necessary for a sale, purchase, or any other type of transfer for consideration to be subject to California’s sales tax in order for the excess tax reimbursement provisions of R&TC section 6901.5 to apply.” Rather, OTA then stated, the requirement to remit or refund excess sales tax reimbursement to CDTFA applied to Body Wise even where the underlying transaction was nontaxable or exempt in California. Based upon this, OTA concluded that Body Wise must remit those amounts collected to California. OTA supported its conclusion by observing that Body Wise was not registered to collect sales tax in some or all of the other states.

However, logically, the excess tax reimbursement covered by the statute must be excess California tax reimbursement in the first instance. Indeed, the statute by its own terms expressly applies to “taxes due under this part [the California Sales and Use Tax Law].” (Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6901.5.) Because these were not taxes due to California but ostensibly to the other states, California’s attempt to abscond with revenues belonging to another state would appear to be unconstitutional as violating the sovereignty of that other state.

The OTA’s conclusion would seem to be at odds with the important maxim of statutory construction to avoid an interpretation of the statute that would render it [...]

Continue Reading

More than Tax Compliance: California Legislation Requires Marketplace Facilitators to Track “High-Volume” Seller Information

By Charles Moll, III, Michael J. Hilkin and Elle Kaiser on Oct 7, 2022
Posted In California, Local Tax, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

The responsibilities of marketplace facilitators operating in California are expanding under legislation recently signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Starting on July 1, 2023, an “online marketplace” will be required to collect and maintain specified contact and financial information related to its “high-volume third-party sellers.” The legislation is intended to “provide greater tools for law enforcement to identify stolen items” being resold through online marketplaces.

Under the legislation, a “high-volume third-party seller” is defined as any seller who, in any continuous 12‑month period during the previous 24 months, has entered into 200 or more transactions through an online marketplace for the sale of consumer products to buyers located in California, resulting in a total of $5,000 or more in gross revenues. While the legislation includes its own definition of an “online marketplace,” the definition will likely reach most (if not all) businesses classified as “marketplace facilitators” for California sales tax purposes.

An online marketplace will be required to collect information about any high-volume third-party seller on its platform, including the seller’s name, tax ID number and bank account number (presuming the seller has a bank account), along with certain government-issued records or tax documents if the seller is not an individual. For those sellers making at least 200 sales totaling at least $20,000 in gross revenues to buyers in California, an online marketplace must collect additional information, disclose certain contact information to consumers and provide a means to allow users “to have direct and unhindered communication with the seller.”

Information collected about sellers must be verified within 10 days and be maintained for at least two years, and the online marketplace must suspend sales activities of a high-volume third-party seller out of compliance with the requirements of the legislation. An online marketplace not in compliance with the legislation will be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.

Businesses impacted by this legislative development or with questions about marketplace facilitators are encouraged to contact the authors of this article.

Tax That DC?!?! FCA Suit on Residency Brings Business Intelligence Company into the Crosshairs

By Eric D. Carstens, Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin and Diann Smith on Sep 2, 2022
Posted In Constitutional Issues, District of Columbia, False Claims Act, Income Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Tax Base

For the first time since the enactment of the False Claims Amendment Act of 2020, the DC Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office has used its new tax enforcement powers to pursue an alleged personal income tax deficiency. This development brings to the forefront a long-simmering constitutional problem with DC’s statutory residency law and offers a stern warning to businesses that assist key employees and executives with their personal tax obligations.

The press rapidly and widely reported on DC’s lawsuit against MicroStrategy Co-Founder, Executive Chairman and former CEO Michael Saylor for alleged evasion of D.C. personal income taxes, which was made public this week. The case alleges that Saylor wrongly claimed that he was a resident of Virginia or Florida (rather than DC) since at least 2012.

The case was originally brought under seal by a relator under DC’s False Claims Act in April 2021—less than one month after the False Claims Amendment Act took effect. Using its new tax authority, the DC AG’s Office filed a complaint last week to intervene (taking over the case going forward). Interestingly, when the DC AG’s Office took over the case, it added MicroStrategy as a defendant under the theory that the company conspired to help Saylor evade DC personal income taxes. Under DC’s False Claims Act, both Saylor and MicroStrategy could be liable for treble damages if a court rules in favor of the DC AG’s Office.

ISSUES WITH DC’S “STATUTORY RESIDENCY” TEST

While determining where an individual is a resident for state and local tax purposes generally requires a fact-intensive analysis, the case against Saylor also implicates DC’s unique (and likely unconstitutional) statutory residency standard. DC’s statute is fundamentally different than statutory residency standards in other states. Most states only tax individuals having their domicile in the state as residents, while some states also have a “statutory residency” test to classify individuals as taxable residents. In most states, a person is classified as a statutory resident if they (1) maintain a permanent place of abode in the jurisdiction and (2) spend more than a specific number of days (typically 183 days) in the jurisdiction.

DC truncates this standard and classifies someone as a statutory resident if they merely maintain a personal place of abode in DC for more than 183 days. Thus, no amount of actual presence of the individual in DC is required. The problem created by this one-of-a-kind standard should be obvious: someone can (as many high-net-worth individuals often do) maintain a residence for 183 days in more than one jurisdiction. Thus, the plain language of the statute would violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution because it runs afoul of the internal consistency test. Under this test, a statute is unconstitutional if under a hypothetical situation in which every jurisdiction has the same law as the one being challenged, more than 100% of the tax base would be subject to tax. Here, if every state had a statutory residency test applicable to anyone who had a [...]

Continue Reading