This morning, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed a bill into law that will exempt cloud-based software transactions from State Gross Retail and Use Taxes, effective July 1, 2018. The signing took place at the headquarters of Indiana-based cloud service provider DemandJump, Inc.

Specifically, Senate Enrolled Act No. 257 (which was unanimously passed by both chambers of the General Assembly) will add a new section to the Indiana Code chapter on retail transactions that specifically provides that “[a] transaction in which an end user purchases, rents, leases, or licenses the right to remotely access prewritten computer software over the Internet, over private or public networks, or through wireless media: (1) is not considered to be a transaction in which prewritten computer software is delivered electronically; and (2) does not constitute a retail transaction.” The new law will also clarify that the sale, rental, lease or license of prewritten computer software “delivered electronically” (i.e., downloaded software) is subject to the Gross Retail and Use Taxes. Continue Reading BREAKING: Indiana Enacts Cloud Software Tax Exemption

Background

As detailed in our blog last month, MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (MoneyGram) is stuck in between a rock and a hard place as states continue to duel with Delaware over the proper classification of (and priority rules applicable to) MoneyGram’s escheat liability for uncashed “official checks.”  The dispute hinges on whether the official checks are properly classified as third-party bank checks (as Delaware directed MoneyGram to remit them as) or are more similar to “money orders” (as alleged by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and numerous other states participating in a recent audit of the official checks by third-party auditor TSG). If classified as third-party bank checks, the official checks would be subject to the federal common law priority rules set forth in Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674 (1965) and escheat to MoneyGram’s state of incorporation (Delaware) since the company’s books and records do not indicate the apparent owner’s last known address under the first priority rule. However, if the official checks are classified as more akin to money orders under the federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act of 1974 (Act), as determined by TSG and demanded by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the other states, they would be subject to the special statutory priority rules enacted by Congress in response the Supreme Court of the United States’ Pennsylvania v. New York decision and escheat to the state where they were purchased. See 12 U.S.C. § 2503(1) (providing that where any sum is payable on a money order on which a business association is directly liable, the state in which the money order was purchased shall be entitled exclusively to escheat or take custody of the sum payable on such instrument).

In addition to the suit filed by the Pennsylvania Treasury Department seeking more than $10 million from Delaware covered in our prior blog, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue recently filed a similar complaint in federal district court in Wisconsin, alleging Delaware owes the state in excess of $13 million. Other states participating in the TSG audit (such as Arkansas, Colorado and Texas) also recently made demands to MoneyGram and Delaware.

It is interesting to note that in 2015, Minnesota (MoneyGram’s former state of incorporation) turned over in excess of $200,000 to Pennsylvania upon its demand for amounts previously remitted to Minnesota for MoneyGram official checks. Apparently not only do the states in which the transaction occurred disagree with but even a former state of incorporation took the majority path.   Continue Reading Unclaimed Property Hunger Games: States Seek Supreme Court Review in ‘Official Check’ Dispute

With many state legislatures wrapping up session within the past month or so, there has been a flurry of last-minute tax amnesty legislation passed. Nearly a half-dozen states have authorized upcoming tax amnesty periods. These tax amnesties include a waiver of interest and, in some circumstances, allow taxpayers currently under audit or with an appeal pending to participate. This blog entry highlights the various enactments that have occurred since the authors last covered the upcoming Maryland amnesty program.

Missouri

On April 27, 2015, Governor Jay Nixon signed a bill (HB 384) that creates the first Missouri tax amnesty since 2002. The bill creates a 90-day tax amnesty period scheduled to run from September 1, 2015, to November 30, 2015. The amnesty is limited in scope and applies only to income, sales and use, and corporation franchise taxes. The amnesty allows taxpayers with liabilities accrued before December 31, 2014, to pay in full between September 1, 2015, and November 30, 2015, and be relieved of all penalties and interest associated with the delinquent obligation. Before electing to participate in the amnesty program, taxpayers should be aware that participation will disqualify them from participating in any future Missouri amnesty for the same type of tax. In addition, if a taxpayer fails to comply with Missouri tax law at any time during the eight years following the agreement, the penalties and interest waived under the amnesty will be revoked and become due immediately. Finally, taxpayers who are the subject of civil or criminal state-tax-related investigations, or are currently involved in litigation over the obligation, are not eligible for the amnesty.

According to the fiscal note provided in conjunction with the bill, the state estimates that 340,000 taxpayers will be eligible for the amnesty and that the program will raise $25 million.

Oklahoma

On May 20, 2015, Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill (HB 2236) creating a two-month amnesty period from September 14, 2015, to November 13, 2015. The bill allows taxpayers that pay delinquent taxes (i.e., taxes due for any tax period ending before January 1, 2015) during the amnesty period to receive a waiver of any associated interest, penalties, fines or collection costs.

Taxes eligible for the amnesty include individual and corporate income taxes, withholding taxes, sales and use taxes, gasoline and diesel taxes, gross production and petroleum excise taxes, banking privilege taxes and mixed beverage taxes. Notably, franchise taxes are not included in this year’s amnesty (they were included in the 2008 Oklahoma amnesty).

Indiana

In May, Governor Mike Pence signed a biennial budget bill (HB 1001) that included a provision authorizing the Department of Revenue (Department) to implement an eight-week tax amnesty program before 2017. While the Department must promulgate emergency regulations that will specify exact dates and procedures, several sources have indicated that the amnesty is expected to occur sometime this fall. The upcoming amnesty will mark the second-ever amnesty offered by Indiana (the first occurred in 2005). Taxpayers that participated in the 2005 program will be disappointed to know that the authorizing legislation specifically prohibits them from participating in the upcoming amnesty.

The amnesty program is applicable to all “listed taxes” collected by the Department, including sales and use taxes, corporate and personal income taxes, financial institutions tax and gas taxes. See Indiana Code § 6-8.1-1-1 for the complete list. Unlike several of the other amnesty programs discussed that apply to more recent liabilities, the Indiana amnesty is only statutorily authorized for liabilities due before January 1, 2013 (i.e., 2012 or earlier). While the Department is not prevented from settling more recent liabilities incurred in 2013 and 2014, such an arrangement would be outside the scope of the statutory amnesty provisions.

The benefits of the upcoming program include abatement of interest, penalties, collection fees and costs that would otherwise be applicable, release of any liens and no civil or criminal prosecution. Indiana taxpayers should be aware that if an eligible liability is not paid during the amnesty period (and is subsequently discovered by the Department) penalties are doubled under the statute.

Arizona

On March 12, 2015, Governor Doug Ducey approved a budget package that included a bill (SB 1471) creating a tax recovery (amnesty) program for taxpayers with outstanding liabilities. The program is scheduled to run from September 1, 2015, through October 31, 2015, and applies to all taxes administered by the Department of Revenue, except withholding and luxury taxes. Taxpayers that come forward with tax liabilities that could have been assessed before 2014 (or before 2015 in the case of non-annual filers) will receive abatement of all civil penalties and interest. Taxpayers that were a party to a closing agreement with the Department during the liability period are not eligible for the program; however, nothing in the statute would appear to prevent a taxpayer that is currently under audit from participating in the program.

As a consequence of applying to the program, the inclusion of the outstanding debt in a taxpayer’s application is considered to be a waiver of the taxpayer’s administrative and judicial appeal rights.

South Carolina

On June 8, 2015, Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill (S. 526) giving the Department of Revenue (Department) authority to schedule and execute a three-month tax amnesty period at their discretion. The bill specifically allows the Department to waive all penalties and interest (or a portion of them at its discretion) for taxpayers that voluntarily file delinquent returns and pay all taxes owed (i.e., the Department cannot waive penalties and interest on a period-by-period basis). Taxpayers with an appeal pending may only participate in the program if they pay all the taxes owed. While payment of the liability is required to participate, it will not constitute an admission of liability or a waiver of the appeal.

Taxpayers should note that any debts not fully paid within an agreed-upon post-amnesty period will be subject to a 10 percent collection and assistance fee, in addition to the penalties and interest otherwise owed. The bill grants authority for imposition of this fee for up to one year after the close of the extended amnesty period.

Practice Note

Now is the time for taxpayers with outstanding tax obligations in any of the state’s offering amnesty (including Maryland) to consider whether the issues can and should be resolved through the amnesty program. In deciding whether to avail oneself of the amnesty offerings, taxpayers should be aware that failure to participate in many states (including Indiana and South Carolina) can lead to increased penalties and fees (the infamous “amnesty hammer”) if the delinquent obligation subsequently surfaces.

In Letter of Finding No. 02-20140306 (Dec. 31, 2014), the Indiana Department of Revenue (Department) determined that income from the sale of two operating divisions of a business pursuant to an order of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was non-business income under Indiana law. Following the reasoning of the Indiana Tax Court in May Department Stores Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 749 N.E.2d 651 (2001), the Department held that the gain constituted non-business income because the forced divestiture was not an integral part of the taxpayer’s business. Taxpayers facing the consequences of forced divestitures should consider whether similar positions can be taken, both in Indiana and in other Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) jurisdictions.

Like many states that base their income apportionment provisions on UDITPA, Indiana defines “non-business income” as all income that is not business income. Indiana employs both the “functional test” and the “transactional test” to determine if a particular item of income qualifies as “business income.” Income may qualify as business income under either test; it is not required that both tests be met.

The functional test considers whether the income derives from the acquisition, management or disposition of property constituting an integral part of the taxpayer’s regular trade or business. Simply put, if a piece of property is used in the taxpayer’s regular course of business, a transaction involving that property will often result in business income. The transactional test, meanwhile, considers whether the income derives from a transaction or activity in which the taxpayer regularly engages.

In the Letter of Finding, the Department considered a taxpayer that sought to acquire, by merger, one of its competitors (“Target”), which consisted of four primary business divisions. The taxpayer and Target were part of a concentrated industry with very few competitors, so the acquisition created antitrust concerns. The taxpayer and Target sought advice from the FTC, which ordered that two of Target’s divisions be sold to a competitor if the merger were to take place. The taxpayer and Target complied with the FTC’s order, and Target sold the divisions to a competitor in 2006, prior to the merger. It classified its resulting income as non-business income. On audit, the Department reclassified the Target’s gain as business income, reducing the taxpayer’s Indiana net operating losses available for use in 2008-2010. The taxpayer appealed.

In examining the transaction, the Department first noted that the income from the sale of the divisions could not meet the transactional test because Target did not engage in the regular sale of business divisions. The Department then turned to the functional test. Arguably, the sale of the two operational business divisions should have resulted in business income because the divisions were used in the regular course of Target’s business. However, the Department observed that this fact alone was not enough to meet the functional test—“[t]he disposition too must be an integral part of the taxpayer’s regular trade or business operations.” Relying on May Department Stores, which also involved a court-ordered disposition resulting from an antitrust case, the Department then determined that the sale of the business benefitted Target’s competitors rather than Target and did not result in business income under the functional test because that sale was not “an integral part” of Target’s business.

Taxpayers hoping to treat gain as non-business income should take note of this ruling. Both the recent Letter of Finding and the underlying May Department Stores decision were ultimately based on UDITPA language, so a similar result may apply in other states using UDITPA or similar provisions. Additionally, the reasoning of the forced disposition exception to the functional test could arguably extend outside of the antitrust context. For example, if a creditor forced the sale of an operating unit, a similar argument could be made that the sale was not an integral part of the taxpayer’s business.