Nationwide Importance
Subscribe to Nationwide Importance's Posts

Maryland Digital Advertising Services Tax—Implementation Delay Likely

On the morning of Friday, February 26, 2021, the Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee added a new item to its agenda for the hearing later that morning. The new item was proposed amendments to Senate Bill 787, a bill that would amend the Maryland Digital Advertising Tax by excluding broadcasters and news media and preventing service providers from directly passing the tax through to customers. One of the amendments would change the tax years to which the tax applies from tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, to tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. The amendment passed on a voice vote.

The amendment was sponsored by the bill’s author, Senate President Bill Ferguson. Senator Ferguson was also the chief proponent of the Digital Advertising Services Tax. A companion bill, House Bill 1200, sponsored by House Majority Leader Eric Luedtke, came up for a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee later that day, but only testimony from supporters of the two carve-outs was received. No amendments were offered, and no votes were taken.

Because the amendment delaying the implementation of the Digital Advertising Services Tax is coming from the Senate’s president, we believe its passage a near certainty. This amendment, if passed, would not delay the effective date of the tax, it would only change the tax year to which it first applies from 2021 to 2022.




Wisconsin Court of Appeals Rules That Department Cannot Deny John Deere DRD Because of the Department’s Prior Guidance on Foreign Distributions

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, issued its decision in Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Deere & Company, regarding the treatment of distributions from foreign partnerships that are treated as corporations for federal tax purposes. There were two questions presented in the case. The first issue was whether distributions received by John Deere qualified as “dividends received from [the foreign partnership] with respect to its common stock” under Wis. Stat. § 71.26(3)(j). The state argued that this distribution was not made with respect to common stock because the entity was a foreign partnership. Unlike the Tax Appeals Commission, the Court of Appeals did not address this issue.

The second issue was whether previous Wisconsin Department of Revenue guidance, in effect during the period at issue, which stated that if a non-corporate entity is classified as a corporation, a non-corporate interest is treated in the same matter as stock, was binding on the Department under Wis. Stat. § 73.16(2)(a). The court held for the taxpayer, finding that the guidance applied and was binding on the Department. The Department has since modified that guidance, thus limiting the applicability of the decision to earlier tax years. This decision leaves open the issue, which will matter to taxpayers for later years, of whether similar distribution events will be eligible for dividends received deduction treatment.

The case is Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Deere & Company, Appeal No. 2020AP726, in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV (Feb. 25, 2021).




Maryland Sued over Digital Advertising “Tax”

Today, McDermott Will & Emery filed suit in Maryland federal court on behalf of a number of leading trade associations against Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot, challenging the state’s recently enacted 10% gross receipts “tax” applicable to digital advertising revenue. The plaintiffs in the suit are the US Chamber of Commerce, the Internet Association, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. The suit asks that the court invalidate Maryland’s punitive imposition as violating several provisions of the US Constitution and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

A file-stamped copy of the complaint is available below:



The complaint alleges that Maryland’s focus on internet advertising services (the tax does not apply to traditional advertising) discriminates against the internet, violating the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Next, because Maryland’s new law burdens and penalizes conduct occurring outside Maryland, it violates the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the US Constitution. The complaint alleges that the characteristics of the imposition and the circumstances surrounding its enactment demonstrate a clear purpose and intent to punish out-of-state digital advertising companies for their extraterritorial activities.

The case is Civil No. 21-cv-410 (D. Md., filed February 18, 2021). Michael B. Kimberly, Paul W. Hughes, Stephen P. Kranz and Sarah P. Hogarth of McDermott, Will & Emery’s Washington, DC, office represent the plaintiffs.

Practice Note: The filing of this suit sends a signal to other states, like New York, Connecticut and Montana, where similar proposals are under consideration. Policymakers in those other states should recognize that following Maryland’s lead will only lead to the courthouse.




Maryland Enacts First Digital Advertising Services Gross Receipts Tax: Now What?

General Assembly Veto Override

On February 12, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s veto of HB 732 (2020) (the Act), a bill enacting a first-of-its-kind digital advertising services tax on the annual gross receipts from the provision of digital advertising services in Maryland. The tax only applies to companies having annual gross revenues (without deduction of any expenses) from all sources of $100 million or more. The rate of the tax varies, depending on the level of global annual gross revenues, from 2.5% (for companies with $1 billion or less in global annual gross revenues) to 10% (for companies with more than $15 billion in global annual gross revenue). The rate applies to gross revenues from the performance of digital advertising services in Maryland. For instance, a company subject to the 10% rate having $100 million of revenue attributable to the performance of digital advertising services in Maryland would owe an annual tax of $10 million that will be reported and paid on a quarterly basis throughout the year.



Effective Date

Even though the legislation says the tax is effective July 1, 2020, under the Maryland Constitution, vetoed legislation becomes effective the later of the effective date in the bill or 30 days after the veto is overridden. Based on today’s veto override, the bill should become effective on or about March 14, 2021. However, because the legislation is “applicable to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020,” the digital advertising services tax will be retroactive to the beginning of this year.

Looming Compliance Deadlines

The digital advertising services tax applies on an annual basis with a return due on or before April 15 of the following year. However, the tax also requires quarterly filing and payment for certain taxpayers. On or before April 15 of the current year, persons subject to the tax are required to file a declaration of estimated tax showing how much Maryland digital advertising services tax they expect they will owe for the calendar year. As part of the declaration and quarterly with returns filed thereafter, the Act requires that they pay at least 25% of the estimated annual tax shown on the declaration. There is a penalty of up to 25% of the amount of any underestimate of the tax. The Act also creates a fine of up to $5,000 and criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment for willfully failing to file the annual return.

Filing and Guidance TBD

At the time of writing, the Maryland Office of the Comptroller has not published any of the forms necessary for making the declaration of estimated tax or the return due on April 15 of the current year. The comptroller’s office also has not adopted regulations as required by the Act, providing guidance on when advertising revenue is derived in Maryland, likely a daunting and complicated task since this is a novel question that other states have not addressed. Many aspects of the Act are vague at best [...]

Continue Reading




DC Council Expands False Claims Act to Tax Claims

The DC Council has passed an amended bill (the False Claims Amendment Act of 2020, B23-0035) that beginning as early as January 2021 will allow tax-related false claims to be raised against large taxpayers for up to 10 years of prior tax periods! This troubling legislation creates a real and imminent possibility of prior tax periods that are closed for assessment under the DC tax law pursuant to DC Code § 47-4301 being reopened by the DC attorney general and/or a private qui tam plaintiff.

While the introduced bill passed a first reading of the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 17, 2020, by a vote of 8-5, the second reading (as amended) passed by a vote of 12-1 (a veto-proof supermajority) on December 1, 2020. The amended bill (as approved by the DC Council) will be sent to Mayor Muriel Bowser for consideration. If the mayor does not veto the bill or if her veto is overridden, the legislation will be assigned an Act number and sent to Congress for a 30-day review period before becoming effective as law. While extremely rare, Congress has an opportunity to reject the DC Council’s Act by passing a joint resolution, which must be signed by the president of the United States to prevent the Act from becoming law. Assuming this doesn’t happen, the Act will become law after the expiration of the 30-day Congressional review period. Assuming the Mayor quickly approves the legislation and Congress does not seek a joint resolution disapproving the Act, the legislation passed by the DC Council could take effect as early as next month!

As amended, the False Claims Amendment Act of 2020 passed by the DC Council will:

  • Remove the taxation bar that exists as part of current law (see DC Code § 2-381.02(d)) and replace it with explicit authorization allowing by the DC attorney general and private qui tam plaintiffs to pursue taxpayers for claims, records or statements made pursuant to Title 47 that refer or relate to taxation when “the District taxable income, District sales or District revenue of the person against who the action is being brought equals or exceeds $1 million for any taxable year subject to any action brought pursuant to this subsection, and the damages pleaded in the action total $350,000 or more.”
  • Require that the DC attorney general “consult with the District’s chief financial officer about the complaint” when tax-related claims are filed by a qui tam
  • Prohibits a claim by a qui tam plaintiff “based on allegations or transactions relating to taxation and that are the subject of an existing investigation, audit, examination, ruling, agreement or administrative or enforcement activity by the District’s chief financial officer.”
  • Not require the District’s chief financial officer “to produce tax information, or other information from which tax information can be inferred, if the production thereof would be a violation of federal law.”
  • Increase the maximum statutory reward for informants under the Taxation [...]

    Continue Reading



Governor Newsom Announces New Relief for Remitting California Sales Tax

On Monday, November 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California will provide temporary tax relief for eligible businesses impacted by restrictions imposed to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

The announcement indicates that the Governor will direct the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to:

  1. Provide an automatic three-month extension for taxpayers filing less than $1 million in sales tax on the return and extend the availability of existing interest- and penalty-free payment agreements to companies with up to $5 million in taxable sales;
  2. Broaden opportunities for more businesses to enter into interest-free payment arrangements; and
  3. Expand interest-free payment options for larger businesses particularly affected by significant restrictions on operations based on COVID-19 transmissions.

No information was provided as to how the CDTFA will expand interest-free payment options for larger businesses, or what constitutes “significant restrictions” on a business’ operations for purposes of this temporary tax relief. Nevertheless, we applaud the governor’s move to initiate this relief for California’s taxpayers, and we will keep readers up to date as additional details are revealed for this program.




False Claims Act Tax Expansion Bill Advanced by DC Council

The DC Council has once again advanced a bill (the False Claims Amendment Act, B23-0035) that would allow tax-related false claims against large taxpayers! The bill passed a first reading of the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 17, 2020, by a vote of 8-5. The bill is sponsored by Councilmember Mary Cheh, who introduced identical bills over the past few legislative sessions that ultimately were not passed. The troubling bill is now eligible for a second (and final) reading at the next legislative meeting on Tuesday, December 1, 2020.

As introduced, the bill would amend the existing false claims statute in the District of Columbia to expressly authorize tax-related false claims actions against a person that “reported net income, sales, or revenue totaling $1 million or more in the tax filing to which the claim pertained, and the damages pleaded in the action total $350,000 or more.” If enacted, it would make the District one of only a few jurisdictions that allow tax-related false claims actions across the country.

Practice Note:

The advancement of this legislation by the DC Council is a very troubling development for taxpayers doing business in the District and threatens to subject them to the same nightmares (and the cottage industry of plaintiffs’ lawyers) that states like Illinois and New York have allowed over the past decade. Because the current false claims statute includes an express tax bar, this bill would represent a major policy departure in the District. See D.C. Code § 2-381.02(d) (stating that “[t]his section shall not apply to claims, records, or statements made pursuant to those portions of Title 47 that refer or relate to taxation”). As we have seen in jurisdictions like New York and Illinois, opening the door to tax-related false claims can lead to significant headaches for taxpayers and usurp the authority of the state tax agency by involving profit-motivated private parties and the state attorney general (AG) in tax enforcement decisions.

Because the statute of limitations for false claims is 10 years after the date on which the violation occurs, the typical tax statute of limitations for audit and enforcement may not protect taxpayers from false claims actions. See D.C. Code § 2-381.05(a). Treble damages would also be permitted against taxpayers for violations, meaning District taxpayers would be liable for three times the amount of any damages sustained by the District. See D.C. Code § 2-381.02(a). A private party who files a successful claim may receive between 15–25% of any recovery to the District if the District’s AG intervenes in the matter. If the private party successfully prosecutes the case on their own, they may receive between 25–30% of the amount recovered. This financial incentive encourages profit-motivated bounty hunters to develop theories of liability not established or approved by the agency responsible for tax administration. Allowing private parties to intervene in the administration, interpretation or enforcement of the tax law commandeers the authority of the tax agency, creates [...]

Continue Reading




New York Issues Much-Anticipated Guidance on Taxation of Telecommuting Employees

Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and work-from-home mandates, New York employers and their nonresident employees have been waiting for the Department of Taxation and Finance to address the million-dollar question: Do wages earned by a nonresident who typically works in a New York office but is now telecommuting from another state due to the pandemic constitute New York source income? New York has historical guidance concerning the application of its “convenience of the employee/necessity of the employer” test, the test used to determine whether a telecommuting nonresident’s wages are sourced to New York, but until recently the Department had been silent as to whether or how such rule applied under the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As many expected, in a recent update to the residency FAQs, the Department clearly stated its position that a nonresident whose primary office is in New York State is considered to be working in New York State on days that he or she telecommutes from outside the state during the pandemic unless the employer has “established a bona fide employer office at [the] telecommuting location.” The Department adopted the “bona fide employer office” test in 2006 as its way of applying the convenience of the employee rule to employees that work from home. The bona fide employer office test is a factor-based test and, for the most part, a home office will not qualify as a bona fide employer office unless the employer takes specific actions to establish the location as a company office. (See: TSB-M-06(5)I, New York Tax Treatment of Nonresidents and Part-Year Residents Application of the Convenience of the Employer Test to Telecommuters and Others.) As is apparent in the FAQ, the Department is mechanically applying this test to employees working from home as a result of the pandemic and is not providing any special rules or accommodations for employees that have been required or encouraged by New York State and local governments to telecommute.

Interestingly, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue took a similar approach to New York’s by promulgating a regulation requiring nonresidents that typically work in Massachusetts but are telecommuting from outside the state to pay tax on their wages. On October 19, 2020, New Hampshire filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ regulation. We understand that New Jersey is considering joining New Hampshire in this lawsuit based on New York’s recent guidance, which would require many New Jersey residents to pay New York income tax even though they are no longer working in New York. The US Supreme Court has twice declined to rule on the constitutionality of the convenience-of-the-employee test, so stay tuned on this important development.




New York Legislation Proposes to Retroactively Remove FCA Culpability Standard for Tax Law Claims

With Halloween just a few weeks away, a scary proposal is brewing in the New York State Legislature that should give taxpayers chills. Companion bills Assembly Bill 11066 and Senate Bill 8872 were recently introduced by committee chairs (Assembly Ways and Means Chairwoman Helene Weinstein and Senate Committee on Judiciary Chairman Brad Hoylman). This legislation would substantially expand the scope of the New York False Claims Act (FCA) for claims under the New York State Tax Law by retroactively creating a new tax-specific cause of action that would award single (as opposed to treble) damages, including consequential damages when the taxpayer makes a false statement or record material to their obligation to pay money to state or local governments under the tax law by mistake or mere negligence.

Specifically, the bill would not modify the existing “knowing” causes of action in NY State Fin. Law § 189(1) that, if proven, result in civil penalties, treble damages and consequential damages. Instead, the bill would create a new tax-specific cause of action with strict liability—i.e., no intent requirement that the violation be shown to have been committed “knowingly” (with actual knowledge or deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth). As a result, inadvertent non-reckless tax mistakes, misunderstandings or mere negligence of the law would result in the taxpayer being subject to a viable claim under the FCA—something that is currently expressly prohibited by law. (See NY State Fin. Law § 188(3)(b) (“acts occurring by mistake or as a result of mere negligence are not covered by this article”).)

To make matters worse, the companion bills (as introduced) would “apply to all false claims, records, statements and obligations concealed, avoided or decreased on, prior to, or after such effective date.” (§ 4; emphasis added.) Thus, if enacted, the bill would open the door to 10 years of backward-looking scrutiny of tax law violations in court by private relators and the New York Attorney General—including years of tax periods that are currently closed under the New York Tax Law or were settled with the New York Department of Taxation and Finance. (See NY State Fin. Law § 192(1) (“[a] civil action under this article shall be commenced no later than ten years after the date on which the violation of this article is committed”).) As a reminder, the FCA would continue to only apply to tax law violations with pleaded damages in excess of $350,000 by persons with net income or sales of more than $1 million in at least one tax year at issue.

Practice Note

As if managing tax audits and potential compliance mistakes administratively was not enough, the introduced New York companion bills would allow a separate parallel path for litigious private parties and the New York Attorney General to enforce the tax law as they see fit in court—creating a framework that is ripe to drag well-intentioned taxpayers through the mud and force them to either defend themselves through costly litigation [...]

Continue Reading




New Jersey Reconsiders Financial Transaction Tax

A troubling New Jersey financial transaction tax proposal, which appeared to be gaining in popularity over the last few months, has reportedly been left out of the 2021 budget deal Governor Phil Murphy struck with legislative leaders last week. The decision to drop the transaction tax from the deal came days after the Wall Street Journal reported that prominent stock exchanges with data centers in New Jersey were prepared to exit the state if the tax plan was adopted. Although the financial transaction tax may be off the table this round, Governor Murphy still likes the idea and we are hearing that the concept is not permanently dead.

S2902/A4402 would impose a financial transaction tax on persons or entities that process 10,000 or more financial transactions through electronic infrastructure located in New Jersey during the year. According to the bill, there are reportedly billions of financial transactions processed daily, and many of those are processed through infrastructure located in New Jersey. The tax would be a quarter of a cent per financial transaction processed in the state and be levied on the processor.

Many well-known New York stock exchanges maintain their electronic infrastructure in New Jersey and have expressed their intention to leave New Jersey before becoming subject to the tax, which they argue harms not only their customers but also ordinary investors because the costs of the tax are passed down from the exchanges to everyone else in the market. Many US stock exchanges already maintain backup facilities in the Midwest. An industry-wide effort to test those Midwestern facilities is scheduled for September 26 to demonstrate their preparedness, and willingness, to relocate.

New Jersey’s financial transaction tax proposal may drive data center businesses out of the state before it is even adopted or formally considered by the state legislature, which teaches a valuable lesson: In a post-coronavirus world, states looking to make up billions in deficits by aggressively taxing businesses that survived the economic crisis risk finding out just how mobile businesses have become.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES