On June 4, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law the state’s fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget implementation bill, Public Act 100-0587 (the Act). The Act makes a significant change to the Illinois sales/use tax nexus standard by adopting an “economic nexus” standard for a sales/use tax collection obligation. The economic nexus language was added to the budget bill one day before it was passed by the General Assembly. The standard is contrary to the physical presence nexus standard established by the United States Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992), the validity of which is currently pending before the Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Docket 17-494. The Court is expected to rule on Wayfair by the end of this month (see here for our prior coverage of the Wayfair case).

The Act amends Section 2 of the Use Tax Act to impose a tax collection and remission obligation on an out-of-state retailer making sales of tangible personal property to Illinois customers if the retailer’s gross receipts from sales to Illinois customers are at least $100,000 or the retailer has at least 200 separate sales transactions with Illinois customers. Similarly, it would amend Section 2 of the Service Use Tax Act with respect to out-of-state sellers making sales of services to Illinois customers. These changes mirror the economic nexus standard adopted by South Dakota. See SD Codified Laws § 10-64-2.

In the wake of Wayfair, other states have adopted similar nexus provisions. See, e.g., Conn. SB 417, Ga. HB 61, Haw. HB 2514, Iowa SF 2417, provisions enacted in 2018. By enacting the statute without an escape clause, Illinois, like other states, has put a law on the books that directly conflicts with Quill, and which will be ripe for constitutional challenge if the US Supreme Court affirms the South Dakota Supreme Court’s ruling that the South Dakota statute is unconstitutional.

The Act also amended Section 223 of the Illinois Income Tax Act to extend the tax credit for for-profit hospitals (equal to the lesser of property taxes paid or the cost of charity care provided) to tax years ending on or before December 31, 2022.

The Act made no changes in response to the federal tax reform bill. In particular the General Assembly did not enact Senate Bill 3152 (proposing to add-back the new federal deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII); see here for our prior coverage). The General Assembly also did not enact either of the pending bills (HB 4237 and 4563) proposing to work around the federal $10,000 limitation on the deductibility of state and local taxes by establishing funds/foundations to which taxpayers could make contributions in exchange for tax credits.

In Health Net Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. S063625 (Apr. 12, 2018), the Oregon Supreme Court rejected a business taxpayer’s constitutional challenges to a 1993 Oregon statute that eliminated the right to utilize a three-factor apportionment formula in calculating Oregon income tax. The Oregon Supreme Court joined courts in Texas, Minnesota, California and Michigan in rejecting taxpayer arguments that states which have enacted Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact, thereby incorporating the UDITPA three-factor (payroll, property and sales) formula, have entered into a binding contractual obligation which may not be overridden.

Oregon enacted UDITPA in 1965 (ORS 314.605 – 314.675) and the Multistate Tax Compact (including Article IV) (ORS 305.655), in 1967. In 1993, however, following a series of amendments to the apportionment formula in Oregon’s version of UDITPA, which moved the state to a single sales factor formula, the Oregon legislature eliminated taxpayers’ ability to elect the three factor apportionment formula incorporated via ORS 305.655.

In Health Net, the taxpayer argued that when Oregon enacted the MTC in 1967, it had entered into a binding contract with other states that was violated by the state’s 1993 elimination of the three factor apportionment formula, in violation of the Contract Clause of the state and US constitutions. In Oregon, a statute is considered “a contractual promise only if the legislature has clearly and unmistakably expressed its intent to create a contract.”  The Oregon Supreme Court determined that the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 305.655 did not “clearly and unmistakably” establish that the Oregon legislature intended to execute a binding contract with other states. The court found ORS 305.655 to have only created statutory obligations—according to the majority, it was a uniform law, not a compact—and, thus, there was no Contract Clause violation.

Continue Reading Oregon Bars Use of Three Factor Apportionment Formula

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018, at 10:00 am (EST) the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., a state tax case poised to reconsider the dormant Commerce Clause physical presence standard upheld by the Court on stare decisis grounds in the historic mail-order case Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (U.S. 1992), which was litigated by McDermott Will & Emery. The Court is expected to consider whether a 2016 South Dakota law imposing sales and use tax collection obligations on online retailers–and other sellers–with no physical presence in the state is permissible given, among other things, the advances in technology and e-commerce since Quill was decided.

For those that would like to attend the South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. oral argument as a member of the public (as opposed to as a member of the US Supreme Court Bar), the Supreme Court Police give out 100–150 numbered tickets between 7:00 am–7:30 am. The doors to the building open at 8:00 am.  Once inside, the line re-forms in the hallway by the Gallery steps and at 9:00 am, the public is allowed upstairs to the Gallery.  The argument will begin at 10:00 am.  Given the popularity of this case, it is anticipated that only around 50 seats will be available to the general public for this argument—so plan to arrive early to ensure you have the best chance to make it in!

After the oral argument concludes, we invite you to join COST, Bloomberg Tax, McDermott Will & Emery, and lawyers involved in many respects of the litigation for a moderated roundtable discussion at the DC office of McDermott Will & Emery, which is just minutes away from the Supreme Court. The roundtable discussion will begin at 12:00 pm (EST) and explore the issues before the Court and opinions regarding the many possible outcomes from the case.

We expect a full house and space will be limited, so please register your interest now so that we can plan to accommodate as many as possible. This case promises to revolutionize the world of SALT, no matter the outcome.

Due to the current impact and the likelihood that states will consider legislation and agency guidance addressing federal tax reform implications for state business taxes, a united, effective, nationwide advocacy effort is needed to ensure the issues are consistently addressed on a multi-state basis. In preparation for anticipated ramifications, a multi-state coalition will need to consider the subjects summarized below. For further coverage, continue reading here.

How McDermott Will & Emery Can Help You:

  • Formation of a coalition of companies and industry trade organizations dedicated to proactively addressing state tax issues raised by federal tax reform on a nationwide basis
  • Identify and track, in real time, proposed state legislative and regulatory responses to federal tax reform
  • Analyze proposed state reforms and develop substantive amendments and comments
  • Develop and implement advocacy campaigns to secure favorable legislative and regulatory outcomes, including
    • Preparation of all advocacy collateral
    • Organization of on the ground advocacy, including retaining in-state advocates where needed
    • Activating allied organizations to ensure broad support
  • Provide support concerning the proper reporting of state responses to federal tax reform on company financial statements

Coalition Goals: 

  • Prevent state legislation expanding tax base through decoupling from federal deductions
  • Support state legislation adopting comprehensive federal reform conformity, with appropriate deviations
  • Identify and remedy Commerce Clause issues
  • Encourage states revenue department to publish guidance on issues such as definitional questions, apportionment approaches and problems with different group calculations
  • Identify and act on opportunities to address related issues through state responses to federal reform
  • Prepare to address potential nexus changes in response to South Dakota v. Wayfair

Continue Reading McDermott’s Take on State Tax after Reform

Many provisions of the House and Senate tax reform proposals would affect state and local tax regimes. SALT practitioners should monitor the progress of this legislation and consider contacting their state tax administrators and legislative bodies to voice their opinions.

Continue Reading.

On October 2, 2017, the State of South Dakota (State) filed its petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court (Court). A copy of the cert petition is available here and the case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. et al., is expected to be docketed on October 3, 2017. The State is asking the Court to overturn its physical presence standard used to determine whether an entity has substantial nexus under the dormant Commerce Clause. This comes only a few weeks after the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled against the State in favor of the online retailer defendants, citing the Court’s physical presence standard upheld in Quill on stare decisis grounds.

Practice Note

This development comes as no surprise to the state and local tax community, and begins what is likely to be one of the most closely watched cert petitions in years. Going forward, the online retailers have three options: (1) acquiesce that the Court should grant cert; (2) waive their right to file a response to the cert petition; or (3) file a brief in opposition. If the online retailers choose the third option, they will have 30 days from today (if the case is in fact docketed today) to file their brief in opposition. This deadline is subject to extensions, upon request (the first of which is always granted as a matter of right). We expect a number of groups to file amicus curiae briefs regarding this cert petition given the significance of the issue raised. If the online retailers do file a brief in opposition, the State will be given an opportunity to file a reply brief, rebutting the points made by the online retailers and reiterating the arguments made in the State’s cert petition. Unlike the cert petition and the brief in opposition, which must be filed with the Court under strict deadlines, the exact timing of the reply brief varies. As a general rule of thumb, a reply brief is usually filed approximately 10 days after filing of the brief in opposition.

While this dispute is a long way from being heard by the Court on the merits (if at all), the cert petition is a critical first step that will have implications to Congress, the courts, state legislatures, taxpayers, and revenue departments across the country. Stay tuned for more coverage of this cert petition and the developments that follow.

Yesterday, the South Dakota Supreme Court released its much-anticipated opinion in the Wayfair litigation, affirming a March 2017 trial court decision granting the remote retailer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the economic nexus law enacted in 2016 (SB 106) is unconstitutional and directly violates the US Supreme Court’s dormant Commerce Clause precedent in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.

The South Dakota litigation remains at the front of the pack of a host of state court cases challenging similar state economic nexus laws across the United States. The expedited review (and decision) by the South Dakota Supreme Court here is significant, and puts the litigation well within the range of cases that would be decided by the end of the October 2017 Term (i.e., by July 2018), assuming cert is granted—which is by no means a guarantee. The state has 90 days to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court, which can be extended upon request. Stay tuned, as this litigation is far from over and the sitting US Supreme Court will be tasked with deciding whether they will honor Justice Kennedy’s request to bring a case before the Court in DMA v. Brohl.

The full South Dakota Supreme Court opinion is available here.

On July 28, Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak dismissed the Complaint filed by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and a group of retailers challenging the constitutionality of the Cook County, Illinois Sweetened Beverage Tax (Tax). A copy of the court’s Order is linked here (Order). The Order also dissolved the June 30 temporary restraining order which had halted the county’s imposition of the Tax, on which we have previously reported. In response to the Order, the county required Tax collection to begin on August 2. The county also announced that by September 20, retailers must remit a “floor tax” on the inventory of sweetened beverages in their possession as of August 1.

The Order rejected both of the constitutional arguments raised by the Complaint. The court held that Plaintiffs raised a good faith Illinois Uniformity Clause challenge, and thereby shifted the burden of proof to the county, because the Tax applied to pre-made, but not made-to-order sweetened beverages. The court went on to hold, however, that the county met its burden to justify this arbitrary tax classification by alleging that pre-made sweetened beverages were more widely available and therefore more likely to be purchased and consumed than made-to-order beverages (thus generating more tax revenues) and by arguing that imposing the Tax on made-to-order beverages would be administratively burdensome. The court then held that Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of establishing that the county’s justifications were insufficient in law or unsupported by the facts. According to the court, the “County has set forth a real and substantial difference between the people taxed, who purchase ready-to-drink, pre-made sweetened beverages, and those not taxed, who purchase on-demand, custom sweetened beverages.” (Order at 9.)

Continue Reading Illinois Court Upholds Cook County’s Beverage Tax Finding It Passes Constitutional Muster and Related Developments

On August 9, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit), overruling the US District Court for the District of Delaware (District Court), allowed a claim by a holder seeking to prevent an unclaimed property audit by Delaware on due process grounds to proceed. See Plains All American Pipeline L.P. v. Cook et al., No. 16-3631 (3d Cir. Aug. 9, 2017).  The procedural due process claim challenges Delaware’s use of auditors that have a stake in the assessment. Consistent with the District Court decision, the Third Circuit held that challenges to Delaware’s estimation methodology were ruled not ripe. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Continue Reading Resistance is not Always Futile: New Decision in Ongoing Delaware Unclaimed Property Audit Litigation

The No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017 (NRWRA) is scheduled for a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on Tuesday, July 25 at 10:00 am EDT in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. The bill was introduced by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) last month with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as one of seven original co-sponsors. As described in more detail below, the bill would codify the Bellas Hess “physical presence” requirement upheld by the US Supreme Court in Quill and make that requirement applicable to sales, use and other similar transactional taxes, notice and reporting requirements, net income taxes and other business activity taxes. Extending the concept to an area far beyond state taxation, the bill would also require the same physical presence for a state or locality to regulate the out-of-state production, manufacturing or post-sale disposal of any good or service sold to locations within its jurisdictional borders.

In the last Congress, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (BATSA) would have codified a physical presence requirement in the context of business activity taxes (e.g., net income and gross receipts taxes). However, the scope of NRWRA’s limitations on interstate regulation and tax differs from the standard set forth in BATSA. Specifically, under BATSA, assigning an employee to a state constitutes physical presence, whereas under NRWRA a company does not have physical presence until it employs more than two employees in the state (or a single employee if he or she is in the state and provides design, installation or repair services or “substantially assists” in establishing or maintaining a market). Under NRWRA, activities related to the potential or actual purchase of goods or services in the state or locality are not a physical presence if the final decision to purchase is made outside of the jurisdiction. Continue Reading House Judiciary Subcommittee to Consider Sensenbrenner Bill Tomorrow