Sales Tax Archives | Page 10 of 27

Sales Tax

Alabama Legislature Rejects (Yet Another) Attempted Digital Tax Expansion

by McDermott Will & Emery, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Mar 21, 2016 | Alabama, Audits, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Last month, a much-anticipated bill drafted by the Alabama Department of Revenue (Department) was introduced in the Alabama Senate that would have expanded the definition of tangible personal property to include “digital goods.” See Senate Bill 242 (introduced February 16, 2016). Fortunately, the Senate Finance and Taxation Education Committee (Committee) rejected the bill on March 9, 2016, after hearing testimony from Assistant Department Counsel Christy Edwards and extensively questioning her on the bill’s content and motives. Notably, the Department continues to take aggressive positions in an effort to tax digital goods and services, without the requisite statutory or legislative approval to back it up.

Background

On February 28 2015, the Department proposed an amendment to Regulation 810-6-5-.09, which would have amended the rental tax on tangible personal property to include “digital transmissions” (broadly defined to include digital content such as streamed audio and video). After significant opposition from industry representatives, the Joint Legislative Council (composed of leadership from both chambers) wrote a letter to Commissioner Julie Magee in April 2015 requesting that the proposed regulation be withdrawn. It cited to the fact that the proposal was overly expansive and would in effect be the imposition of a new tax, a determination that rests with the legislature. See our prior coverage here. With hesitation and only after continued pushback from the Legislative Council, the Department withdrew the rental tax regulation amendment on July 7, 2015.

In response to the rejection of the proposed regulation, the Department went through its historic revenue rulings and revoked a number of technology rulings in January 2016, noting they will continue attempting to apply the rental tax to streaming services. Commissioner Magee cited the revocations as a mere “clarification” that did not change the law. In her comments to the revocations, Commissioner Magee noted that all taxpayers will be collecting and remitting tax in the future “[e]ither legislatively through a digital goods bill or through audits and assessments.”

Senate Bill 242

The digital goods bill arrived just a few weeks later, sponsored by Senator Trip Pittman. As introduced, the bill would define “tangible personal property” to include “digital goods.” For these purposes, digital goods include “[s]ounds, images, data, facts, or information, or any combination thereof, transferred electronically, including, but not limited to, specified digital products and any other service transferred electronically that uses one or more software applications.” As is readily apparent, this language is extremely broad and arguably includes every service delivered over the internet. The definition also raised concerns because it borrows from Streamlined language (“transferred electronically”; “specified digital products”), but Alabama is not a Streamlined state and does not define those terms elsewhere in the legislation or Code. As drafted, the bill would have become effective immediately upon passage.

After cancelling a scheduled Committee hearing earlier this month, citing the need for revisions, the sponsor and Department entered the March 9 public hearing with a substitute bill. Instead of defining “digital [...]

Continue Reading

Illinois Department of Revenue Further Revises its Proposed Amendments to Shipping and Handling Regulations

by Mary Kay McCalla Martire | Feb 19, 2016 | False Claims Act, Illinois, Local Tax, Sales Tax

The Illinois Department of Revenue (Department) has further revised its recently proposed amendments to the regulations governing the taxability of shipping and handling charges. See our prior coverage here. The revisions to the Proposed Amendments to 86 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 130.415 and 130.410 (Revised Proposed Amendments) were made in response to particular comments and concerns raised by industry groups, as explained by the Department in its Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Revised Proposed Amendments address the following topics:

Retroactivity of the Revised Proposed Amendments to November 19, 2009, the date of the Kean decision: The Department added a “safe harbor provision” for taxpayers that have complied with the existing regulation for time periods prior to the effective date of the Revised Proposed Amendments. Prop. 86 Ill. Admin. Code § 130.415(b)(1)(A)(i). Taxpayers fitting within the safe harbor will be considered to be in compliance with Illinois law regarding the taxability of delivery charges.
Clarification of taxpayers subject to the Revised Proposed Amendments: The Department clarified that all persons making taxable sales or collecting or self-assessing Illinois use tax are subject to the Revised Proposed Amendments. Prop. § 130.415(b)(1)(A)(ii).
Free shipping option: The Department has added language expressly stating that when a seller offers customers free standard shipping or “qualified” free shipping (i.e., free shipping for purchases totaling at least a certain amount), any other separately stated shipping service for which a seller charges customers (i.e., expedited shipping) are separately contracted for and thus nontaxable. Rev. Prop. § 130.415(b)(1)(B)(ii), (C). For delivery charges to qualify as nontaxable because a seller offers “qualified” free shipping, the customer’s purchase must actually be eligible for free shipping (i.e., must total at least a specified dollar threshold). Rev. Prop. § 130.415(b)(1)(D)(v).
Taxability of delivery charges where taxability or tax rate of underlying property differs: The Revised Proposed Amendments also provide that sellers can elect to itemize delivery charges on sales of taxable and tax exempt items and low and high rate items and pay the associated tax on shipping charges as determined by the underlying item. Rev. Prop. 130.415(b)(1)(F)(i). In the absence of separately identifying the delivery charges, the “lump sum” rules as set forth in the original version of the Proposed Amendments will apply. Rev. Prop. § 130.415(b)(1)(F)(i).
Taxability of delivery charges where taxability of charges themselves differ: The Department also added a similar rule based on taxability of the delivery charges themselves, in a circumstance, for example, where some charges are taxable and others are not. The Revised Proposed Amendments mirror the rule expressed above, stating that that a seller can separately state delivery charges for each item sold and pay the associated tax as determined per item. Rev. Prop. 130.415(b)(1)(E)(i). If the invoice contains a lump sum of total delivery charges, the sum will not be taxable if the selling price of items with nontaxable delivery charges is greater than the selling price of items with taxable delivery charges. [...]

Continue Reading

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Finding of Consumer Fraud Act Violation in Sales Tax Overcollection Case

by Catherine A. Battin | Feb 9, 2016 | Illinois, Sales Tax

The Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed a finding for a plaintiff individual, upholding the circuit court’s conclusion that defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears) violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1) (the Act) by overcharging plaintiff sales tax on his purchase of a digital television converter box (converter box”). Aliano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 143367 (Dec. 30, 2015). Sears appealed the circuit court’s ruling on two bases: (1) that the court failed to find that the plaintiff was actually deceived by any alleged misrepresentation made by Sears (an element required to be found for a violation of the Act); and (2) that the court found Sears had violated that Act based on its determination that overcollection of sales tax “is a de jure deceptive practice violation of the [Act].” Although it upheld the underlying ruling, the court reversed the circuit court’s award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act and remanded for a determination of the amount of reasonable fees to which the plaintiff is entitled.

Plaintiff’s claim under the Act was based on his purchase of a converter box. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff presented a coupon issued by the federal government for a $40 credit against the purchase price. The coupon entitled Sears to a reimbursement by the federal government for the lesser of $40 or the purchase price of the converter box. Approximately a year before Plaintiff’s purchase, the Illinois Department of Revenue (the Department) had issued a bulletin stating that the portion of the selling price covered by the coupon was not subject to Illinois sales tax. Despite this guidance, the Sears sales associates who handled Plaintiff’s purchase charged him sales tax on the full selling price of the converter box. Plaintiff sued, alleging that Sears wrongfully collected sale tax on the value of the coupon.

In arguing that Plaintiff was not deceived by the sales associate’s representation of the amount of tax owed, Sears contended that Plaintiff knew he would be overcharged sales tax on the purchase, and that he “went shopping for a lawsuit.” One month before Plaintiff’s purchase, the case captioned Nava v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. was filed in the circuit court, in which virtually identical allegations were made against Sears. (On allegations that Sears violated the Act, the appellate court eventually determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed and reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears (see Nava v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 122063 (July 29, 2013).) Despite finding that “[t]he facts relied upon by Sears could certainly support the inference that the plaintiff was not deceived by the representations of Sears’s sales associate as to the net amount that he owed and that he was well aware at the time that he purchased the converter box that sales tax should not have been assessed on the $40 value of the NTIA coupon which he [...]

Continue Reading

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Introduces Pilot Voluntary Disclosure Program

by Richard C. Call and Scott M. Susko | Feb 8, 2016 | Audits, Income Tax, Local Tax, Massachusetts, Procedure, Sales Tax

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (the Department) released a draft administrative procedure introducing a pilot Voluntary Disclosure Program (the Program) for the settlement of uncertain tax issues for business taxpayers on January 19. The Department introduced this Program in response to a suggestion made by Scott Susko, an author of this article, and another practitioner, both of whom serve as taxpayer professional representatives on the Department’s Advisory Council. We commend the Department for reacting to this suggestion in such a proactive manner.

The Program will provide “a process through which uncertain tax issues may be resolved on an expedited basis, generally within four months” (All quotations in this post are from the Department’s draft administrative procedure).

We think this Program will be particularly helpful to public companies in resolving issues related to their financial statement reserves.

The Program defines an “uncertain tax issue” as an issue “for which there is no clear statutory guidance or controlling case law, and which has not been addressed by the Department in a regulation, letter ruling, or other public written statement,” and “for which a taxpayer would be required to maintain a reserve in accordance with ASC 740: Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (formerly Fin 48).” The issue also “must not have been addressed as part of a prior audit of the taxpayer, a prior application for abatement or amended return filed by the taxpayer, or a prior ruling request made by the taxpayer.”

To qualify for the Program, “any potential tax liability attributable to the uncertain tax issue(s) must be $100,000 or more, exclusive of interest and penalties.” A taxpayer that is under audit or has received notice of an impending audit is not eligible for the Program. The Department has the “discretion to determine that the Program is not appropriate for specific cases.”

The Department “will consider settlement of an uncertain tax issue(s) where: (1) the taxpayer has presented its position on the issue(s) and the Department agrees that the tax treatment of the issue(s) is uncertain; and (2) the taxpayer has fully disclosed and documented the issue(s) and the facts associated with that issue(s).”

A taxpayer may initiate the process by submitting an anonymous letter to the Department, which will respond to the taxpayer within 30 days. If the Department accepts the taxpayer into the Program, the taxpayer may submit an application, including a settlement proposal and identifying the taxpayer, within 45 days of receiving the Department’s acceptance letter.

The Department will waive penalties related to the uncertain tax issue for a taxpayer that reaches an agreement with the Department pursuant to the Program, as well as for a taxpayer that does not reach an agreement with the Department “provided the taxpayer acted in good faith.”

The Department requested practitioner comments on the draft administrative procedure by February 1, and MWE submitted two technical comments.

Our first comment was that following the initial evaluation, the Department should issue to the taxpayer a one-page technical position explaining whether it does or [...]

Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Denies BOE Petition for Review in Lucent Technologies

by McDermott Will & Emery, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Jan 26, 2016 | Audits, California, Nationwide Importance, Procedure, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Last week, the California Supreme Court denied the State Board of Equalization’s (BOE’s) petition for review in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, No. S230657 (petition for review denied Jan. 20, 2016). This comes just months after the California Court of Appeals held against the BOE and ordered it to pay Lucent’s $25 million sales tax refund. As explained in more detail below, the denial finalizes the favorable precedent of the Court of Appeals in Nortel Networks Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 191 Cal. App. 4th 1259, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 905 (2011)—representing a monumental victory for a broad range of taxpayers in California and opening the door for significant refund opportunities. Moreover, the California Supreme Court’s denial affirms the Court of Appeals decision that the BOE’s position was not substantially justified and the taxpayer was entitled to reasonable litigation costs of over $2.6 million.

Background

Lucent and AT&T (collectively Lucent) are and were global suppliers of products and services supporting, among other things, landline and wireless telephone services, the internet, and other public and private data, voice and multimedia communications networks using terrestrial and wireless technologies. Lucent manufactured and sold switching equipment (switches) to their telephone customers, which allowed the customers to provide telephone calling and other services to the end customers. The switches required software, provided on storage media, to operate. Lucent designed the software (both switch-specific and generic) that runs the switches they sell, which was copyrighted because it is an original work of authorship that has been fixed onto tapes. The software also embodies, implements and enables at least one of 18 different patents held by Lucent.

Between January 1, 1995, and September 30, 2000, Lucent entered into contracts with nine different telephone companies to: (1) sell them one or more switches; (2) provide the instructions on how to install and run those switches; (3) develop and produce a copy of the software necessary to operate those switches; and (4) grant the companies the right to copy the software onto their switch’s hard drive and thereafter to use the software (which necessarily results in the software being copied into the switch’s operating memory). Lucent gave the telephone companies the software by sending them magnetic tapes or CDs containing the software. Lucent’s placement of the software onto the tapes or discs, like the addition of any data to such physical media, physically altered those media. The telephone companies paid Lucent over $300 million for a copy of the software and for the licenses to copy and use that software on their switches.

The BOE assessed sales tax on the full amount of the licensing fees paid under the contracts between Lucent and its telephone company customers. Lucent paid the assessment and sued the BOE for a sales tax refund attributable to the software and licenses to copy and use that software at the trial court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Lucent’s refund claims, and the Los Angeles [...]

Continue Reading

Michigan Backs Off Cloud Tax, Refund Opportunities Available

by McDermott Will & Emery, Eric D. Carstens and Stephen P. Kranz | Jan 14, 2016 | Audits, Michigan, Nationwide Importance, Procedure, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

After refusing to back down on the issue for years, the Michigan Department of Treasury (Department) issued guidance last week to taxpayers announcing a change in its policy on the sales and use taxation of remotely accessed prewritten computer software. This comes after years of litigating the issue in the Michigan courts, most recently with the precedential taxpayer victory in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 321505 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2015), in which the Michigan Court of Appeals held that remote access to software did not constitute delivery of tangible personal property. See our prior coverage here. The Department has announced it will apply Auto-Owners (and the numerous other favorable decisions) retroactively and thus allow for refunds for all open tax years. This is a huge victory for taxpayers; however, those that paid the tax (both purchasers and providers alike) must act promptly to coordinate and request a refund prior to the period of limitations expiring.

Implications

In issuing this guidance, the Department specifically adopts the Michigan Court of Appeals interpretation of “delivered by any means” (as required to be considered taxable prewritten computer software). Going forward, the “mere transfer of information and data that was processed using the software of the third-party businesses does not constitute ‘delivery by any means’” and is not prewritten software subject to sales and use tax. See Auto-Owners, at 7. Not only has the Department admitted defeat with respect to the delivery definition, but it also appears to have acquiesced to taxpayers’ arguments with respect to the true object test (or “incidental to services” test in Michigan). This test was first announced by the Michigan Supreme Court in Catalina Marketing, and provides that a court must objectively analyze the entire transaction using six factors and determine whether the transaction is “principally” the transfer of tangible personal property or the transfer of services with a transfer of tangible personal property that is incidental to the service.[1] In last week’s guidance, the Department states that if only a portion of a software program is electronically delivered to a customer, the “incidental to service” test will be applied to determine whether the transaction constitutes the rendition of a nontaxable service rather than the sale of tangible personal property. However, if a software program is electronically downloaded in its entirety, it remains taxable. This guidance comes in the wake of Department and the taxpayer in Thomson Reuters, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury stipulating to the dismissal of a Supreme Court case involving the same issues that had been appealed by the Department. In light of these developments, it appears that the Department has given up all ongoing litigation over cloud services.

Immediate Action Required for Refunds

Taxpayers who paid sales or use tax on cloud based services are entitled to receive a refund for all open periods. In Michigan, the period of limitations for filing a refund [...]

Continue Reading

McDermott Lawyers Publish Reference Guide on State Taxation of Meal Delivery

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 12, 2016 | Audits, False Claims Act, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base

As the on-demand economy continues to boom, the delivery of everything! now! continues to be the mantra. In particular, delivery of meals and prepared food is the latest business model to see tremendous growth. Delivery of alcohol is coming not far behind. As restaurants and fast food chains shift from providing their own delivery (or perhaps no delivery at all) to delivering via one of the new service models, they must consider the impact that this decision will have on their sales tax collection obligation. This is especially true in light of the recent increase in predatory lawsuits targeting the overcollection and undercollection of sales tax on delivery charges.

McDermott Will & Emery state and local tax lawyers Steve Kranz, Diann Smith, Cate Battin and Mark Yopp recently published a whitepaper in State Tax Notes on this emerging topic that describes the typical service models that exist and offers a framework for restaurants and other prepared food providers to begin thinking about the often complex sales tax consequences. Steve Kranz also presented the key issues identified in this whitepaper at the National Conference of State Legislatures Executive Committee Task Force on State and Local Taxation meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah on January 8, 2016. Given policymaker interest in the topic, it is not unlikely that legislators will seek to rationalize the burdens that current sales tax rules place on the blossoming on-demand business models.

Focus on Tax Controversy – December 2015

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 4, 2016 | Income Tax, Insurance Tax, Local Tax, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Virginia, Washington

McDermott Will & Emery has released the December 2015 issue of Focus on Tax Controversy, which provides insight into the complex issues surrounding U.S. federal, international, and state and local tax controversies, including Internal Revenue Service audits and appeals, competent authority matters and trial and appellate litigation.

Mark Yopp authored an article entitled “Waiting for Relief from Retroactivity,” which discusses how courts are expanding the ability of state legislatures to retroactively change taxpayer liability going back many years.

View the full issue (PDF).

Tax Breaks for Data Centers: The Numbers Might Be Cloudy

by McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 23, 2015 | Incentives, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax, Sales Tax

States are competing aggressively to attract data centers with various tax incentives. Data center companies and their business customers are taking them up on their offers. But are these incentives really a good deal for the businesses? Tax incentives that seem attractive at first glance may not be beneficial when they are examined in the context of the entire tax picture, especially in the unique, uncertain, and developing world of state taxation of technology and computer services.

With the rise of global commerce, cloud computing, streaming video and a wide array of other internet-related businesses, data centers have become big businesses. In 2014, the colocation data center industry reached $25 billion in annual revenue globally, with North American companies accounting for 43 percent of that revenue.[1]

To get in on the action, states have been trying to outdo one another by offering a slew of competing tax breaks to the industry. According to the Associated Press, states have provided about $1.5 billion in data center tax breaks over the past 10 years.[2] Some states have gone even further, providing tax incentives to the entire data center industry through changes in the tax laws themselves. Such incentives can include reductions or exemptions from sales and use taxes on data center products or services, favorable income tax rates for data center companies and favorable property tax rules for data center assets. According to a recent analysis by the Associated Press, at least 23 states provide such statutory data center tax incentives.[3] Just a few of the most recent examples include a sales tax exemption for data center equipment in Michigan,[4] a broadening of the sales tax exemption for data center electricity and equipment in North Carolina[5] and a favorable apportionment formula for data centers in Virginia.[6] Importantly, many of these incentives apply not only to the data centers themselves, but also to their customers.

Businesses considering whether to take advantage of these incentives would be well advised to consider not only the potential benefit from any particular tax incentive, but also whether the decision would affect their tax picture as a whole. Because of the current uncertain and changing landscape for state and local taxation of technology and computer services, the analysis of these incentives for data centers and their customers can be particularly complex.

One item that a taxpayer might overlook when considering whether to take advantage of an incentive program is what affect, if any, the choice of location might have on the taxpayer’s property factor for income tax apportionment purposes. Obviously, location of a company’s technology equipment in a data center under a colocation agreement will cause the company’s in-state property factor to increase due to its equipment being located in the state. However, data center customers also should be aware that local tax authorities might also argue that the colocation payments themselves constitute consideration for the use of real or tangible personal property and thus the [...]

Continue Reading

Financial Statement Countdown for Remote Sellers Selling into Alabama

by McDermott Will & Emery, Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Dec 16, 2015 | Alabama, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Sales Tax

Remote sellers making sales into Alabama have until January 1, 2016, to begin collecting sales tax regardless of their physical presence in the state or consider whether there is any impact on financial statement issues as a result of non-collection.

This summer, the Alabama Department of Revenue issued a surprising new regulation, § 810-6-2-.90.03. This rule specifically provides that a remote seller with more than $250,000 of sales into the state that also meets the provisions of the “doing business” statute must register for a license and collect and remit sales/use tax to the state. Notably, the list of activities that are considered “doing business” includes solicitation of sales using cable television advertising; substantial solicitation of sales plus benefitting from any banking; financing; debt collection; telecommunication; or marketing activities occurring in this state; any contact with the state sufficient to allow Alabama to impose a sales and use tax collection requirement under the U.S. Constitution. Ala. Code § 40-23-68(b)(9). The rule goes into effect January 1, 2016.

If this had happened 10 years ago, the response would be simple – Alabama’s economic nexus threshold is clearly unconstitutional under Quill. However, several developments, both legal and environmental, have made the analysis more complex. First, the Alabama legislature has provided an option to remote sellers to use the “Simplified Sellers Use Tax Remittance” process. This program creates almost the simplest tax calculation and remittance process possible: one rate, no exemptions, single jurisdiction filing. Alabama is surely counting on the Supreme Court of the United States to find that this simplified process removes the burden which concerned the Court in Quill. There are, of course, numerous arguments against this scenario; many of them quite strong. Nevertheless, Alabama’s clever, parallel compliance juggernaut does mandate some respect.

Second, Justice Anthony Kennedy clearly feels it is high time for the holding in Quill to be relegated to an era when only academics knew of the internet. One justice’s comments do not mean that sculptors should begin carving Quill’s headstone, but the Court already has at least two justices that do not believe the dormant commerce clause exists at all. Today, there is clearly the highest risk ever of some type of melting of the Quill iceberg.

So what does this mean for remote sellers with Alabama customers? First—of course such sellers could begin collecting, but, some sellers philosophically believe in the underpinnings of Quill and other sellers may find collection, even under the simplified system, financially oppressive and/or administratively difficult. For those sellers that will not or cannot comply, the immediate questions that must be answered are: (1) What are the risks of not collecting; and (2) Do those risks rise to the level of financial statement issues? Obviously the first risk is that with every sale, the seller may be incurring tax liability that it otherwise could have passed on to its customers. How real this risk is dovetails with the second issue. In determining the risk of probable loss (or other financial statement standard), [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS