Audits Archives - INSIDE SALT

Audits

Unclaimed Property Laws and the Health Industry: Square Peg, Round Hole

by Stephen P. Kranz, Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Vanessa S. Torres | Mar 18, 2025 | Audits, False Claims Act, Unclaimed Property

The healthcare industry has recently become the target of increased scrutiny from multistate unclaimed property audits, likely due to the high volume of mergers, acquisitions, and private equity deals. These audits have shed light on the many complexities and challenges within the sector. Healthcare industry holders are often pressured by state auditors and administrators to fit a square peg in a round hole – something both they and their advocates should continue to actively push back against.

Identifying whether any “property” needs to be reported can be a significant challenge in an industry where a single patient transaction involves multiple parties and is governed by intricate business agreements, which are continuously updated and managed. Unclaimed property audits, however, are typically conducted with a narrow focus on a single holder and use standardized document requests designed for a broad range of businesses. This approach often leads to unrealistic expectations for record retention and management, which rarely align with the specific laws and practices of the healthcare industry.

Texas Comptroller Proposes Rule Changes Cementing Tax on 130% of Marketplace Sales

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Sep 17, 2024 | Audits, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Texas, Transaction Taxes

In a controversial move, the Texas Comptroller is poised to amend Rule 3.330, Data Processing Services, effectively rewriting the rules to favor the contentious stance it has adopted in recent audits and litigation. This proposed amendment, which aims to cement the aggressive stance the Comptroller has taken in audits and litigation that a marketplace provider’s commission-based earnings are taxable “data processing services,” represents a significant departure from long-standing practices and highlights a disturbing trend of what is effectively a retroactive regulatory adjustment.

A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED CHANGES

The crux of the proposed amendment is the addition of paragraph (b)(5) to Rule 3.330, which the Comptroller explains is being added “to clarify that marketplace providers provide data processing services to their customers as they enter, retrieve, search, manipulate, and store data or information in the course of their business.” New paragraph (b)(5) provides that:

Marketplace provider services may be included in taxable data processing services when they involve the computerized entry, retrieval, search, compilation, manipulation, or storage of data or information provided by the purchaser or the purchaser’s designee. For example, services to store product listings and photographs, maintain records of transactions, and to compile analytics are taxable data processing services.

This new paragraph specifically targets the commissions that marketplace providers charge for facilitating sales, taxing them separately from the underlying transactions themselves. This is not just an expansion of the tax base; it’s a redefinition of what constitutes a taxable service, applying it in ways that were never intended under previous interpretations of the law that considered such commissions nontaxable auctioneer/brokerage fees.

WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS PROBLEMATIC

The Comptroller’s approach is problematic for several reasons, including:

Effective Retroactivity. The proposed amendment seeks to justify an aggressive (and questionable) agency position that the Comptroller has only recently begun to assert in audits and litigation after it quietly revoked a long-standing administrative ruling in 2020. The revocation of this ruling in 2020, without public notice or legislative approval, was a stark deviation from established practices. By changing the rules after the fact, the proposed amendment undermines the stability and predictability of the law.
Double Taxation. If a marketplace facilitates a sale where a consumer pays $100 and the marketplace earns a $30 commission, the proposed amendment would not only tax the $100 transaction but also the $30 commission. This results in an effective tax on 130% of marketplace sales, with the additional 30% a double tax on the portion of the sales proceeds paid to the marketplace provider as a commission. Under this scheme, the Comptroller is demanding that marketplace providers pay tax on 130% of the sales price and charge the consumer for tax on the 100% and the seller for the 30%.
Discriminatory Tax Under ITFA. The proposed amendment subjects commissions earned by online marketplace providers to taxation as data processing services while similar services provided offline, such as commissions earned by auctioneers of oil and gas leases, consignment stores, and real estate agents using [...]

Continue Reading

Texas Taxing 130% of Marketplace Sales

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Eric D. Carstens | Oct 3, 2023 | Audits, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Texas, Transaction Taxes

Proving that everything is bigger in Texas, the state’s Comptroller is now assessing marketplace providers on 130% of their sales. It seems a sales tax on 100% was not big enough for tax officials in the Lone Star State. The additional 30% is a tax on the portion of the product sales price kept by marketplace providers. Talk about double dipping…

Like all states following the Wayfair decision, Texas adopted a marketplace law in 2019 that required marketplace providers to charge tax on 100% of the sales price for products sold over the platform by third-party sellers. Apparently unsatisfied, the Texas Comptroller has decided to assess tax on 130% of marketplace sales, with the additional 30% a double tax on the portion of the sales proceeds paid to the marketplace provider as a commission.

In most marketplaces, the provider charges a commission for allowing a third-party seller to use the platform and its services, like advertising and access to the platform’s user base. As most commissions are typically in the 30% range, Texas is demanding that marketplace providers pay tax on 130% of the sales price and charge the consumer for tax on the 100% and the seller for the 30%.

Without notifying the public, Texas is asserting, on audit, that these commissions are taxable. This position is contrary to a long-standing administrative ruling that was issued in 2012 and quietly revoked by the Texas Comptroller in 2020.

A quick example illustrates how aggressive this position is and the negative impact it will have on marketplace sellers in Texas: Take a book collector in Austin who is selling used books through a marketplace provider and sells a $100 rare Bible to a customer in Dallas. Historically, the marketplace provider would charge an 8% sales tax on the $100 Bible and send that $8 to the Texas Comptroller.[1] The marketplace provider would then take its $30 commission and send the balance of $70 to the local bookseller.

Now, the Texas Comptroller is telling the marketplace provider, on audit, that the $30 commission it received is separately subject to the sales tax. The marketplace provider in the example should have collected an additional $2.40 in sales tax on its receipt of the commission, resulting in an effective sales tax rate on the transaction of 10.4% (again, with no legislative authority or change behind this view). Instead of getting $70 in revenue, the bookseller will only receive the net after sales tax, or $67.60.[2] While this reduction may not seem like much, it will be the difference between being profitable and losing money for some Texas-based sellers. For the Texas Comptroller to make this policy change without legislative blessing—and while the state is enjoying a record budget surplus—should raise alarm bells.

How does the Texas Comptroller get there? First, it deems the commission payment a transaction separate and distinct from the underlying sale of the Bible in the above example. Second, it looks at the services the marketplace provider offered [...]

Continue Reading

OTA Finds CDTFA’s Audit Methodology Arbitrary

by Charles Moll, III, Troy M. Van Dongen, Marcy Jo Mandel and Elle Kaiser | Jul 24, 2023 | Audits, California, Sales Tax

In Appeal of Colambaarchchi (OTA Case No. 21017152; 2023-OTA-302), a California-based retailer was audited by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) for years 2016 through 2019. Upon audit, CDTFA determined that taxable sales went unreported. In calculating the extent of the underreporting, CDTFA used various indirect methods for different periods in the audit years and applied a method to each period that maximized the amount of tax due. The Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) found that this methodology was utilized simply to create the largest underreporting, was inconsistent and lacked the required minimum rational and reasonable basis.

Colambaarchchi operated two perfume retail stores. During its audit, CDTFA performed various sales tests that suggested unreported sales. To compute the taxable measure, CDTFA used a combination of the federal income tax returns (FITR) method and the bank deposits method. Specifically, CDTFA used the bank deposits method for 2016, switched to the FITR method for 2017, then switched back to the bank method for 2018 and Q1 2019. In the audit work papers, CDTFA noted that the “[a]uditor used the higher of FITR or bank deposit difference to arrive at audited taxable sales.” In other words, CDTFA alternated between the two methodologies simply to maximize the tax liability.

CDTFA subsequently issued a notice of determination, which the company timely appealed. At the prehearing conference, OTA placed the parties on notice that, in deciding the appeal, the OTA may consider “[w]hether respondent was justified in selecting the bank deposit method for 2016, 2018 and the first quarter of 2019 and gross receipts from the [FITR] for 2017.” Accordingly, bearing the initial burden of showing that its decision to switch between two methods was reasonable and rational, CDTFA argued that it “selected the FITR method for 2017 because ‘the bank deposits may not have all cash deposited into the bank’ in 2017, and that it may have selected the bank deposits method for 2016, 2018 and 1Q19 because the income tax returns ‘may not be accurate because obviously there are additional [bank] deposits in addition to what they reported on their income tax returns.’”

OTA rejected this argument because it found “no support in the record for CDTFA’s assumption that the bank deposits method is less accurate in 2017 than in the other periods such that it would be reasonable and rational for CDTFA to switch to the FITR method in 2017.” According to OTA, CDTFA “cannot assume that one indirect audit method is more accurate in one period than another just because it produces a higher result.” OTA further stated that “this arbitrary selection made solely to increase unreported taxable sales is not reasonable and rational. Where CDTFA alternates between indirect audit methods because one method produces a higher result, CDTFA is no longer attempting to estimate the correct measure of tax but instead is arbitrarily increasing the tax measure.” Consequently, OTA held that CDTFA failed to meet its burden of proof, and CDTFA was ordered to utilize the bank deposits [...]

Continue Reading

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Releases Guidance on a De Minimis Exception for Use Tax on Rolling Stock

by Richard C. Call, Stephen P. Kranz and Jonathan C. Hague | Mar 28, 2023 | Audits, Local Tax, Massachusetts, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) recently released Directive 23-1, which outlines the conditions for a de minimis exception where the Commissioner will not require a taxpayer to pay the use tax for rolling stock used or stored within the state. This directive comes at a time when the DOR is auditing many companies that use trucks and trailers and is currently assessing use tax on rolling stock if no sales tax was collected at the time of sale.

Directive 23-1 provides that “the Commissioner will consider the in-state use [of rolling stock] to be de minimis and will neither impose, nor require the taxpayer to pay, use tax on the use or storage of the rolling stock” where the taxpayer can prove “that the rolling stock that it owns or leases for 12 months or longer was used or stored in Massachusetts for no more than six days during a 12-month period” (emphasis added).

Companies “can demonstrate the frequency with which rolling stock was used or stored in Massachusetts through sufficient records that show the dates of travel into and in Massachusetts, such as GPS logs.” Additionally, a credit against the Massachusetts use tax is allowed if the taxpayer has paid a sales tax legally due to another state and that state allows a corresponding credit for sales or use tax paid to Massachusetts.

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 | Mar 10, 2023 | 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 and Michael J. Hilkin | Feb 24, 2023 | 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

“Voluntary” in Name Only? New Jersey Introduces Transfer Pricing Initiative

by Stephen P. Kranz, Diann Smith and Michael J. Hilkin | Jun 16, 2022 | Audits, Income Tax, Interest and Penalties, New Jersey, Transfer Pricing

The New Jersey Division of Taxation (Division) has announced a “voluntary” transfer pricing initiative beginning June 15, 2022, and continuing through March 2, 2023. According to the Division, the initiative is targeted toward companies that have intercompany transactions that would be subject to transfer pricing adjustment.

The initiative is broadly available to taxpayers with related party intercompany pricing, even if those taxpayers are currently under audit or have a case pending before the Division’s Conference and Appeals Branch. However, the initiative does not apply to matters in litigation.

Taxpayers must agree in writing to participate in the initiative by September 15, 2022, and comply with Division deadlines thereafter (including by providing “all required transfer pricing, tax, and financial information and documentation” to the Division by October 31, 2022). As part of any agreement reached with a taxpayer, the Division will agree to waive all applicable penalties and all rights to assess any additional tax, interest or penalties except for adjustments relating to federal corrections.

Notably, the Division is warning taxpayers that do not reach an agreement through the initiative that in the future it will: (1) “assess all applicable penalties;” (2) “not waive any penalties;” and (3) audit according to the Division’s “regular audit schedule” without agreeing “to a methodology or settlement for any unaudited open tax years.”

Evidently, the Division has hired Dr. Ednaldo Silva, Founder & Director of RoyaltyStat, to assist with the initiative. Sources familiar with the initiative report that the Division will consider prospective-only settlement agreements under the initiative, under the right circumstances.

CDTFA Proposes Significant Revisions to Chapters 4 and 13 of the Sales Tax Audit Manual

by Charles Moll, III, Troy M. Van Dongen, Marcy Jo Mandel and Elle Kaiser | Feb 10, 2022 | Audits, California, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax

On February 2, 2022, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) held an interested parties meeting (IPM) to discuss proposed amendments to sales tax audit manual (AM) Chapter 13, “Statistical Sampling,” and Chapter 4, “General Audit.”

Prior to the IPM, the CDTFA released a lengthy discussion paper outlining the extensive proposed changes to the AM, which includes:

1. Removing the three error rule. The current text of AM 1308.05 explains that when a sample produces only one or two errors, the auditor must evaluate whether these errors are representative or whether it is possible they indicate problems in certain areas that could be examined separately. Under the proposed amendment, the same evaluation standards would still be in place without the minimum error requirement. According to the CDTFA, the proposed removal of the three error rule is because of the fact that “the number of errors identified in a sample does not give any indication whether the sample is representative or not…If the combined evaluation evaluates within Department [CDTFA] standards, it is justified to project the results even if one or two errors are found.”

2. Requiring 300 minimum sample items per stratum unless the auditor obtained approval from CAS to select fewer than 300. Currently, the “minimum sample size of at least 300 items of interest is to be used in all tests, except where the auditor can support a smaller sample size and it evaluates well.” (AM 1303.05) Under the new subsection titled “Materiality,” a minimum of 300 sample items per test stratum is recommended. Computer Audit Specialist (CAS) approval is required for selecting less than 300 sample items per test stratum.

3. Refunding Populations: A minimum of 100 sample items per stratum is required. In the section addressing sampling refund populations (AM 1305.10), the proposed amendment would permit auditors to select as few as 100 sample items per test stratum without CAS approval, provided the expected error rate is sufficiently high (greater than 20%). No such rule exists under the current text of Chapter 13.

4. Contacting CAS when the prior audit had 300 hours charged to it is now mandatory. In contrast, under the current rule, it is mandatory that CAS be contacted when the prior audit expended 400 or more hours or if CAS was involved in the prior audit.

5. Replacing Credit Methods 1, 2 and 3 with one recommended approach to handling credits in a statistical sample. The subsection (AM 1303.25) currently lists three types of credit methods that can be used for a statistical sample. The CDTFA now only recommends one credit method for use in a stratified statistical sample, which is referred to as “Method 1” in the current AM text. When auditors review electronic data, attempts should be made to match credit invoices to original invoices (including partially) if it is certain that the credit invoices are related to the original invoice. For all credit memos that are not matched to original invoices, those credits will be removed from [...]

Continue Reading

COVID-19 State Tax Relief for Illinois | Quarterly Estimated State Income Tax Payments Still Due 4/15/20

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Mar 26, 2020 | Audits, Federal Tax, Illinois, Income Tax, Interest and Penalties, Sales Tax, Tax Base

Illinois has announced the following tax-related relief measures related to COVID-19. Taxpayers who file quarterly estimated returns should note that unlike the federal government, Illinois has not extended the April 15, 2020 due date for first quarter estimated tax payments.

I. Extension of Filing and Payment Deadlines for Illinois Income Tax Returns

The 2019 income tax filing and payment deadlines for all taxpayers who file and pay their Illinois income taxes on April 15, 2020, have been automatically extended until July 15, 2020. This relief applies to all individual returns, trusts and corporations. The relief is automatic; taxpayers do not need to file any additional forms or call the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) to qualify. For additional details, click here for the guidance issued by IDOR on March 25, 2020.

Penalties and interest will begin to accrue on any remaining unpaid balances as of July 16, 2020.

Even though the deadline has been extended, IDOR has encouraged taxpayers expecting a refund to file as soon as they can. Taxpayers who have already filed a return can check the status of their return by using the Where’s My Refund? link located at mytax.illinois.gov

Note: This extension does NOT impact the first and second installments of estimated payments of 2020 taxes that are due on April 15 and June 15. Although the federal government has extended the date for the payment of first quarter estimated tax payments to June 15, 2020, Illinois has not followed this practice. Illinois taxpayers are still required to estimate their tax liability for 2020 and make four equal installment payments to IDOR, starting on April 15, 2020.

II. Sales Tax Deferral for Bars and Restaurants

To help alleviate some of the unprecedented challenges facing bars and restaurants due to COVID-19, Governor Pritzker has directed IDOR to defer sales tax payments for eating and drinking establishments that incurred less than $75,000 in sales tax liabilities last year. Qualifying businesses are still required to timely file their sales tax returns, but will not be charged penalties or interest on their late payments due in March, April or May 2020. The IDOR estimates this will give relief to nearly 80% of the bars and restaurants in Illinois.

Taxpayers taking advantage of this relief will be required to pay their sales tax liabilities due in March, April and May in four installments, starting on May 20 and extending through August 20. For more information, please view IDOR’s informational bulletin available at tax.illinois.gov.

III. Small Business Loans

The US Small Business Administration has approved the state’s eligibility for disaster assistance loans for small businesses facing financial hardship in all 102 Illinois counties due to COVID-19. Eligible businesses can apply for up to $2 million in low-interest loans here.

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS