Indiana Tax Court Upholds Pharmacy Benefit Management Costs of Performance Approach

The Indiana Tax Court held that a “pharmacy benefit management company” sold services as opposed to tangible personal property for tax years 2011 through 2013. The company’s receipts were properly sourced as revenue from services under the income producing activity/costs of performance rule, which in this case meant that all receipts were sourced outside of Indiana.

The Indiana Department of Revenue (Department) argued that the pharmacy benefit management company’s “receipts from its sale of prescription drugs should have been sourced to Indiana as required for sales of tangible personal property under Indiana Code” because the company’s “primary ‘revenue stream’ was attributable to buying, selling, and delivering prescription drugs in transactions which occurred within [Indiana].”

The court disagreed with the Department, finding “[the pharmacy benefit management company’s] income was derived from providing pharmacy benefit management services and not from selling prescription drugs during the years at issue.” The court looked to the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-K filing, observing “[n]one of the emphasized words [in the Form] describe a sale of goods, but instead, describe services. Indeed, nowhere in the designated portion of [the company’s] Form 10-K does the text state that the [company’s] revenue is from the sale of prescription drugs, focusing on facilitating delivery as its discrete service, not as a function of selling a good” (emphasis in the original). On May 1, 2019, Indiana switched from its historical cost of performance sourcing methodology to a market-based sourcing for services, retroactive to January 1, 2019.




US Treasury Issues Guidance on the ARPA Claw-Back Provision

Earlier this week, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued formal guidance regarding the administration of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) claw-back provision. The guidance (Interim Final Rule) provides that the claw-back provision is triggered when there is a reduction in net tax revenue caused by changes in law, regulation or interpretation, and the state cannot identify sufficient funds from sources other than federal relief funds to offset the reduction in net tax revenue. The Interim Final Rule recognizes three sources of funds that may offset a net tax revenue reduction other than federal relief funds—organic growth, increases in revenue (e.g., a tax rate increase) and certain spending cuts (i.e., cuts that are not in an area where the recipient government has spent federal relief funds). According to the Treasury, this framework recognizes that money is fungible and “prevents efforts to use Fiscal Recovery Funds to indirectly offset reductions in net tax revenue.”

The Interim Final Rule also provides guidance on what is considered a change in law, regulation or interpretation that could trigger the claw-back (called covered changes), but that point remains somewhat ambiguous. The Rule provides that:

The offset provision is triggered by a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from ‘a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation.’ A covered change includes any final legislative or regulatory action, a new or changed administrative interpretation, and the phase-in or taking effect of any statute or rule where the phase-in or taking effect was not prescribed prior to the start of the covered period. [The covered period is March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024.] Changed administrative interpretations would not include corrections to replace prior inaccurate interpretations; such corrections would instead be treated as changes implementing legislation enacted or regulations issued prior to the covered period; the operative change in those circumstances is the underlying legislation or regulation that occurred prior to the covered period. Moreover, only the changes within the control of the State or territory are considered covered changes. Covered changes do not include a change in rate that is triggered automatically and based on statutory or regulatory criteria in effect prior to the covered period. For example, a state law that sets its earned income tax credit (EITC) at a fixed percentage of the Federal EITC will see its EITC payments automatically increase—and thus its tax revenue reduced—because of the Federal government’s expansion of the EITC in the ARPA. This would not be considered a covered change. In addition, the offset provision applies only to actions for which the change in policy occurs during the covered period; it excludes regulations or other actions that implement a change or law substantively enacted prior to March 3, 2021. Finally, Treasury has determined and previously announced that income tax changes—even those made during the covered period—that simply conform with recent changes in Federal law (including those to conform to recent changes in Federal taxation of unemployment insurance benefits and taxation of loan [...]

Continue Reading




Texas Governor Signs Bill Exempting Medical Billing Services from Sales Tax

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed HB 1445 into law, making “medical or dental billing services” exempt from sales tax. Under the statute, a “medical or dental billing service” is defined as “assigning codes for the preparation of a medical or dental claim, verifying medical or dental insurance eligibility, preparing a medical or dental claim form for filing, and filing a medical or dental claim.” Beginning in 2002, the Texas Comptroller’s office took the position for sales tax purposes that “medical billing services” were not taxable data processing services. In November 2019, the Comptroller published a notice stating that it was going to treat “medical billing services” as taxable “insurance services.” Implementation of that notice was delayed multiple times, most recently through October 2021. The Comptroller’s office may now take the position that the legislative definition of “medical or dental billing services” is narrower than the definition the Comptroller has applied in its recent guidance and assert that some items are still subject to tax effective October 2021. Companies should consider whether their medical billing services fall within the legislative definition of “medical or dental billing services.”




Kansas Decouples from GILTI and 163j

Yesterday afternoon the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of Senate Bill (SB) 50, effectively enacting the provisions of the bill into law. Among those are provisions decoupling from certain Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions that taxpayers have been advocating for since 2018.

Under the new law, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, taxpayers receive a 100% deduction for global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) included in federal income. Furthermore, the new law is explicit that foreign earnings deemed repatriated and included in federal income under IRC § 965 are considered dividend income and eligible for the state’s 80% dividend-received deduction. The new law also decouples from the interest expense deduction limitation in IRC § 163(j), enacted as part of the TCJA for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020.

A Kansas decoupling bill was first proposed in 2019. Decoupling efforts faced an uphill battle because of the Kansas legislature’s reluctance to pass laws that could be perceived as tax cuts. The 2019 bill was vetoed by Governor Kelly, but that bill was not overridden by the legislature. The STARR Partnership and its members have worked closely with the Kansas Chamber of Commerce on the Kansas decoupling efforts and finally, in this legislative session, advocates were able to persuade the legislature that the decoupling provisions were not tax cuts but provisions designed to prevent a tax increase. This is a great result in Kansas and serves as a welcomed reminder that states that tax GILTI and 965 income (cough, cough, Nebraska) are outliers.




The US Department of the Treasury Says State IRC Conformity Bills Do Not Trigger Federal Relief Claw-Back Provision

As we’ve blogged about in the past, the recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) includes an ambiguous claw-back provision. If broadly interpreted, it could result in states losing relief funding provided under the APRA if there is any state legislative or administrative change that results in the reduction of state revenue. This provision is causing havoc in the state tax world, rightfully so.

After much yelling and screaming from state attorneys general and those in the tax world, including McDermott (see McDermott letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attached), the US Department of the Treasury issued a press release announcing forthcoming “comprehensive guidance” on this provision. Treasury also addressed a question that has been on the top of our minds since the provision was enacted: Could state legislation addressing state conformity to the Internal Revenue Code trigger the claw-back? States routinely conform to and decouple from changes to the Internal Revenue Code, so if such actions could trigger the claw-back, state legislatures would be reluctant to consider them. We were so concerned about this issue that we specifically addressed it in our letter to Secretary Yellen.

This week, we received the Treasury’s guidance on this issue: Conformity bills will not trigger the claw-back. In its press release, Treasury stated:

… Treasury has decided to address a question that has arisen frequently: whether income tax changes that simply conform a State or territory’s tax law with recent changes in federal income tax law are subject to the offset provision of section 602(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Regardless of the particular method of conformity and the effect on net tax revenue, Treasury views such changes as permissible under the offset provision.

This is a step in the right direction and should ease concerns of state legislatures. Passing a conformity bill will not cause any loss of federal funding. Treasury’s guidance, because it applies to all “methods of conformity,” should cover any legislation that either couples with or decouples from the Internal Revenue Code.

But our work is not done. In our letter to Secretary Yellen we also asked for guidance confirming that state actions in other areas will not trigger the claw-back. Specifically, we made concrete suggestions that actions to correcting tax statutes or rules that are either unconstitutional or barred by or violate federal law also should not trigger the claw-back. Treasury’s recent press release gives us a glimmer of hope that Treasury will exclude such actions from the clutches of the claw-back provision as well. Stay tuned for more!




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES