Sales Tax Archives - INSIDE SALT

Sales Tax

Washington’s Digital Ad Tax: A Lawsuit Waiting To Happen?

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | May 1, 2025 | Allocation/Apportionment, Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Washington

On April 27, 2025, the Washington Legislature delivered to Governor Bob Ferguson’s desk Senate Bill (SB) 5814, a sweeping tax bill that, among other changes, would expand the state’s retail sales and use tax to sales of digital advertising services and a range of high-tech and IT services. The bill now awaits the governor’s signature, with a decision due by May 20, 2025.

If enacted, the changes would take effect October 1, 2025, marking a significant expansion of Washington’s tax base into areas that have long been exempt, particularly intermediate business services such as digital marketing, data processing, and custom software support.

WHAT THE BILL DOES

SB 5814 amends RCW 82.04.050 by redefining “sale at retail” to include a broad range of services previously excluded from the sales tax. Specifically, it adds “advertising services,” defined as:

All digital and nondigital services related to the creation, preparation, production, or dissemination of advertisements including, but not limited to: layout, art direction, graphic design, mechanical preparation, production supervision, placement, referrals, acquisition of advertising space, and rendering advice…

The definition also expressly includes:

Online referrals
Search engine marketing
Lead generation optimization
Web campaign planning
The acquisition of advertising space in the internet media
Website traffic analysis for determining the effectiveness of an advertising campaign.

However, the bill expressly excludes advertising services rendered in connection with newspapers (as defined in RCW 82.04.214); printing or publishing (RCW 82.04.280); radio and television broadcasting; and out-of-home advertising such as billboards, transit displays, and signage at events.

With that list of exclusions, it’s hard to imagine what advertising services other than internet advertising services are left to tax. This focus on internet advertising creates a prima facie discriminatory tax on electronic commerce barred by the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA).

ITFA AND THE CERTAINTY OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE

ITFA prohibits states from imposing “discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.” A tax is discriminatory if it applies to digital services but not similar offline equivalents.

While SB 5814 expressly includes both digital and non-digital advertising services, the carve-outs for traditional formats such as print, TV, and radio effectively leave out non-digital advertising. As the bill itself states, services connected to newspapers, publishing, and broadcast media are not taxable. This distinction creates a classic ITFA problem:

A digital banner ad campaign will be taxed.
A newspaper ad or radio spot promoting the same product will not.

This kind of structural bias has been challenged before. Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax (the first of its kind in the United States) was enacted in 2021 and quickly faced multiple lawsuits on ITFA and other grounds. In 2022, a Maryland trial court struck down the law as unconstitutional, citing ITFA violations and federal preemption (although the decision was later reversed on procedural grounds). That litigation continues while the stack of taxpayer refund claims on the Maryland Comptroller’s desk grows taller.

Washington faces a similar outcome. SB 5814’s facial discrimination against digital advertising is precisely the kind of unequal [...]

Continue Reading

ITFA Is Alive and Well: New York Advisory Opinion Reaffirms Sales Tax Exemption for Internet Access Services

by Eric D. Carstens and Jonathan C. Hague | Oct 2, 2024 | Constitutional Issues, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, New York, Sales Tax

In its latest Advisory Opinion, TSB-A-24(4)S (June 26, 2024), the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the Department) reaffirmed the broad protections offered by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) against state and local taxation of internet access. The Petitioner, a New York-based business, sought clarity on whether its subscription to a secure hosted exchange service, which facilitates critical email functions without requiring internal IT infrastructure, would be subject to New York State sales tax.

KEY FACTS AND BACKGROUND

The Petitioner subscribes to a secure hosted exchange service from a provider located in Florida. This service offers comprehensive email management, including mobile device synchronization and Microsoft Exchange functionalities. The service includes (1) unlimited mailbox storage, (2) premium email security protection, (3) anti-virus protection, and (4) live phone support. The service relies on the Petitioner maintaining its own internet connection, with software licensing obligations dictated by agreements with third-party vendors.

THE DEPARTMENT’S RULING

After acknowledging that email service qualifies as taxable telephony or telegraphy service under New York Tax Law § 1105(b)(1), the Department concluded unequivocally that “[e]lectronic mail services are included in the ITFA definition of Internet access, regardless of whether such services are provided independently or packaged with Internet access” and are, therefore, not subject to New York State sales tax. This decision hinges on the protections established by ITFA, which precludes state and local governments from imposing taxes on Internet Access.

ITFA: A CRITICAL SAFEGUARD AGAINST STATE TAXATION

ITFA, enacted in 1998 and made permanent in 2016, has consistently served as a bulwark against state efforts to impose tax on Internet Access and multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. See ITFA § 1101(a). Under ITFA’s Internet Access prong, services that enable users to access content, information, email, or other services offered over the internet are shielded from state and local sales taxes.[1] The Advisory Opinion underscores this federal protection, categorizing the Petitioner’s email services as an Internet access service, which is exempt from New York State sales tax under ITFA.

REINFORCING ITFA’S PREEMPTIVE POWER: RECENT CASES

This is not an isolated application of ITFA. ITFA has recently been at the center of significant legal challenges, reinforcing its importance in protecting digital services from state taxation. For example, in Petition of Verizon New York Inc., DTA No. 829240 (N.Y. Div. Tax App. May 4, 2023), an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that the gross receipts tax on transportation and transmission corporations could not be applied to revenues from asymmetric digital subscriber line and fiber broadband services because these services are federally preempted under ITFA as Internet Access. In rejecting the Department’s narrow interpretation of internet access services, which only included services provided to end-user consumers, the ALJ emphasized that US Congress intended ITFA’s prohibition on taxing Internet Access to be broad, using the definition from ITFA rather than state tax law.

ITFA’S ONGOING RELEVANCE

New York’s Advisory Opinion highlights the continued importance of ITFA in today’s digital economy. As businesses increasingly [...]

Continue Reading

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

California Legislator Considers Digital Advertising Tax

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Mar 29, 2024 | Allocation/Apportionment, California, Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Senator Steven Glazer, chair of the California State Senate Revenue and Tax Committee, is treating data like the next gold rush and taking bold steps to mine this new vein of wealth with his proposed “Digital Data Extraction Tax Law.” While couched as a tax on “data extraction,” the base for the tax is digital advertising revenue. The draft proposal contains several gaps, including the tax rate and effective date, and we understand that Senator Glazer is not certain he will file it.

Senator Glazer modeled his proposed tax on Maryland’s digital advertising gross receipts (DAGR) tax approach but with a twist, aligning it with Tennessee’s digital barter tax proposal (House Bill 2234/Senate Bill 2065). While California’s bill attempts to cure the numerous legal infirmities present in Maryland’s DAGR tax, it suffers from many of the same fatal weaknesses.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

The bill’s stated intent is to tap into the supposedly “enormous economic rents” that the “largest” internet companies generate from the personal data they “extract” from their users. The draft bill would introduce a new tax on gross receipts from the sale of digital advertising services (digital ad tax). The digital ad tax would be imposed on persons engaged in “digital data extraction transactions,” defined as transactions where:

(i) a person sells advertisers information about or access to users of the person’s services, [and]

(ii) the person engages in a digital barter by providing services to a user in full or partial exchange for displaying advertisements to the user or collects data about the user.

Under the bill, persons with digital advertising revenue above a certain level would be deemed engaged in taxable activity. Additionally, the digital ad tax would only apply to persons with advertising revenue above a certain (currently unspecified) level but would provide a carve-out for news media entities. Revenue from the tax would be earmarked for a fund that supports local newspapers.

A troubling feature of the draft bill is its sourcing regime. The bill would require that those subject to the digital ad tax use personally identifiable information about those to whom the ads are served to source revenue from the advertising to either California or somewhere else. Specifically, the bill requires that sellers of digital advertising services capture and retain information, such as users’ GPS locations or IP addresses. A seller would be required to produce this information to tax authorities on audit. These requirements raise profound privacy issues.

Perhaps recognizing the myriad of legal challenges faced by Maryland’s DAGR tax, California’s bill attempts to limit its application to entities based on their revenue derived in the state. It also attempts to ward off challenges that the digital ad tax is a discriminatory tax on electronic commerce barred by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) by adding a bare statement that the “Legislature finds and declares . . . . [t]hat digital advertising is not substantially similar to traditional print [...]

Continue Reading

Remote Retailers Held Responsible for Tax Collection in Washington

by Troy M. Van Dongen and Elle Kaiser | Feb 6, 2024 | Franchise Tax, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes, Washington

If there’s a lesson to be learned from the Washington Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Orthotic Shop Inc. and S&F Corporation v. Department of Revenue, No. 39321-6-III (Jan. 23, 2024), it’s that the use of a marketplace does not eliminate a remote seller’s tax responsibilities, particularly for pre-Wayfair periods.

The dispute in Orthotic Shop involved a retailing business and occupation tax (B&O tax) and a retailing sales tax assessment against two merchants for sales they made on an online retailer’s website. The audit report asserted that the merchants were “retailers” who maintained a nexus to Washington because they maintained a stock of goods in the online retailer’s warehouses located in the state. As such, the audit report concluded that the merchants were liable for retailing B&O tax and sales tax on sales to Washington customers made via the online retailer’s website.

The merchants admitted before the Court of Appeals that they sold their goods to consumers and not to the online retailer. However, the merchants challenged the assessment and argued that the online retailer’s provision of fulfillment services necessarily rendered it a “consignee” responsible for remitting retailing B&O tax and sales tax on transactions facilitated through its website in accordance with WAC 458-20-159. The merchants also asserted that the assessment was unfair because they lacked an understanding that they could incur a tax collection liability in Washington through the storage of their merchandise in an in-state warehouse.

The Court of Appeals determined that the merchants failed to show that the online retailer was a consignee with sole responsibility for tax collection. “A consignee,” the Court of Appeals explained, “makes sales on behalf of the consignor.” By contrast, the merchants’ product pages on the marketplace’s website listed the merchants as the sellers, not the online retailer. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded: “[s]ince the merchants sold to buyers, they are liable for retailing B&O tax on those sales.”

The merchants’ failure to list the online retailer as the “seller” on their respective sales pages was also fatal to their argument that they were not liable for retailing sales tax on sales made via the online retailer’s website. The Department of Revenue’s administrative rules explain that while a consignee is responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax on sales made in its own name, when the consignee is selling in the name of the consignor, the consignor may instead report and remit the retail sales tax. Here, the Court of Appeals noted that while the online retailer’s agreement with the merchants provided that it would remit the sales tax if the merchants asked it to do so, neither merchant made such a request.

The Court of Appeals also was unimpressed by the merchants’ assertions that they did not understand that they could establish physical presence nexus and incur a tax liability based on the storage of their goods at a warehouse in the state. The Court of Appeals explained that ignorance of the law, was not an acceptable defense.

CASE TAKEAWAYS

Although Orthotic Shop [...]

Continue Reading

Following Maryland’s Lead? We Guess Everyone Wants to Go to Court. Icy Challenges to Nebraska’s Advertising Services Tax Act Start to Emerge

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Jan 18, 2024 | Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Nebraska, Sales Tax, Tax Base

Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen’s ambitious plan to provide $2 billion in property tax relief via an increase in the sales tax rate and an expansion of the sales tax base is stirring significant debate. Part of his proposal is embodied in the newly introduced Legislative Bills 1310 and 1354, known as the “Advertising Services Tax Act” (the Act), which aims to finance this tax relief by imposing a 7.5% gross revenue tax on advertising services. However, this initiative faces a wall of voter opposition. A recent Battleground Connect survey revealed that 70% of likely voters disapproved of increasing the sales tax rate to offset property taxes. It should come as no surprise that Nebraska voters would not want to follow Maryland’s lead. What is surprising is that Nebraska legislators are willing to tie the fate of their new tax to a law that is currently being challenged in court in Maryland after the state adopted a similar tax in 2021.

The heart of the controversy lies in the new advertising tax’s specifics. The tax only targets firms with US gross advertising receipts exceeding $1 billion, a threshold that effectively discriminates against out-of-state advertising service providers and implicates constitutional and federal laws governing interstate commerce.

The proposed law specifically excludes “news media entities” and targets out-of-state digital advertising platforms. “Advertising services” incorporates a range of services, including digital advertising services, related to advertisement creation and dissemination. The term also includes “online referrals, search engine marketing and lead generation optimization, web campaign planning, the acquisition of advertising space in the Internet media, and the monitoring and evaluation of website traffic for purposes of determining the effectiveness of an advertising campaign.” Advertising services does not include services provided by entities “engaged primarily in the business of news gathering, reporting, or publishing articles or commentary about news, current events, culture, or other matters of public interest.” A news media entity does not include “an entity that is primarily an aggregator or republisher of third-party content.” Taxing publishers of one type of content and not taxing others raises profound First Amendment concerns.

While facially the Act applies to all advertising, its real focus is on digital and internet advertising and this targeting raises multiple legal and policy concerns:

Impact on Nebraska Businesses and Consumers. The tax, though imposed largely on out-of-state service providers, will be passed through directly to local businesses when they buy advertising. Much like a sales tax, service providers can and will add a line-item charge of 7.5% on each invoice to the local business placing the advertisement, driving up the cost of advertising services for Nebraska businesses. These higher costs will be reflected in the prices of goods and services sold to Nebraska consumers or the profits of local businesses.
Potential for Litigation. Drawing parallels with Maryland’s digital advertising tax, which faced legal challenges and has already once been ruled unconstitutional and barred by federal law, Nebraska’s legislation would also lead to costly and [...]

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

California Supreme Court Lets It Stand That CDTFA Can Decide Who Is and Is Not a Retailer

by Charles Moll, III, Troy M. Van Dongen and Elle Kaiser | Apr 28, 2023 | California, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax

On April 26, 2023, the Supreme Court of California declined to review the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Grosz v. California Dep’t of Tax & Fee Admin. In the underlying case, Stanley Grosz, a business owner based in Fresno, California, filed suit seeking a declaration that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) has a mandatory duty to collect sales and use tax from an internet retailer for sales that were made by third-party merchants on the retailer’s website, but fulfilled by the retailer. Grosz also sought an injunction requiring the CDTFA to collect the sales and use tax.

The internet retailer’s service allows third-party merchants to outsource their order fulfillment to the retailer. As part of the service, the internet retailer stores the merchants’ products at one of its fulfillment centers. According to Grosz, the provision of these services necessarily defined the internet retailer as a “consignment retailer” responsible for remitting sales tax on transactions facilitated through its website. (18 CCR § 1569.) The CDTFA disagreed and counter-argued that the determination of who constitutes a “retailer” under California sales and use tax law is a decision that is within its sole discretion to make.

The Second District Court of Appeal, in analyzing the statutory definition of “retailer” contained in Section 6015(a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, concluded that it was “clear” that both the internet retailer and the third-party merchants could be regarded as retailers for purposes of transactions conducted under the service. The Court then agreed that the CDTFA has broad discretion to determine who constitutes a “retailer” under California’s sales and use tax laws.

It is important to note that the facts in this case occurred before the enactment of California’s Marketplace Facilitator Act (MFA). Under current law, marketplace facilitators generally are responsible for collecting, reporting and paying the tax on retail sales made through their marketplace for delivery to California customers. Thus, the current statutory scheme has greater clarity concerning the sales tax collection and reporting requirements for marketplace facilitators and sellers. Nevertheless, this case highlights the exposure some sellers may have for sales made before the MFA went into effect if tax was not properly collected and remitted.

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.

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS