On Monday, October 17, the Illinois Appellate Court issued another taxpayer-friendly opinion in an Illinois False Claims Act case alleging a failure to collect and remit sales tax on internet and catalog sales to customers in Illinois (People ex. rel. Beeler, Schad & Diamond, P.C. v. Relax the Back Corp., 2016 IL App. (1st) 151580)). The opinion, partially overturned a Circuit Court trial verdict in favor of the Relator, Beeler, Schad & Diamond, PC (currently named Stephen B. Diamond, PC).
Today, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Goodlatte from Virginia, released the long-anticipated discussion draft of the Online Sales Simplification Act of 2016. Highlights of the bill include:
- The bill implements the Chairman’s much-discussed ‘hybrid-origin’ approach.
- The bill removes the Quill physical presence requirements for sales tax collection obligations under certain circumstances.
- States may impose sales tax on remote sales IF the state is the origin state and it participates in a statutory clearinghouse AND the tax uses the origin state base and the destination state rate for participating states (the origin state rate is used if the destination state does not participate in the clearinghouse).
- A remote seller will only have to remit the tax to its origin state for all remote sales.
- A destination state may only have one statewide rate for remote sales.
- Only the origin state may audit a seller for remote sales.
- States that do not participate in the clearinghouse have significant restrictions on the ability to extract the tax from the remote seller.
Below is a more in-depth discussion of the intricacies of the bill.
Illinois Law Firm Continues to Clog Court System with Tax-Related False Claims Act Allegations—but Proposed Legislation May Offer Relief
As many readers of this blog know, over the past 12 years the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois has been deluged with lawsuits filed by a Chicago law firm against internet retailers as a “whistleblower” under the Illinois False Claims Act. The factual support for the lawsuits comes solely from internet-based investigations, including purchases made on retailer websites. The lawsuits typically allege that the retailers have knowingly failed to collect and remit sales and use tax on some aspect of their internet sales shipped to Illinois. See 740 ILCS 175/1 et seq. Substantial damages are claimed, including up to three times the tax allegedly owed to the State, attorneys’ fees, and a penalty assessment for each tax filing that failed to disclose the tax due.
An initial wave of approximately 90 lawsuits was filed in 2003 and 2004 against retailers that did not collect Illinois tax on their internet sales. In 2011, the whistleblower firm began to file a second round of lawsuits against retailers that collected tax on their internet sales of merchandise, but not on the shipping and handling charges associated with those sales. To date, more than 200 of these “shipping and handling” tax lawsuits have been filed. Most recently, the whistleblower firm has filed claims against defendants in the liquor industry, alleging a failure to collect sales and use tax and, in some instances, the failure to remit Illinois’ gallonage tax on sales of alcohol.
The validity of these lawsuits is hotly contested. Many lawsuits have been dismissed, and at least two shipping and handling tax cases have resulted in trial rulings against the whistleblower firm and in favor of the retailer defendants. It remains to be seen how the courts will determine the viability of Relator’s most recent claims, which appear on their face to be flawed.
Many other cases, including those that raise only nuisance value damages, have been settled to avoid the cost of litigation. These settlements appear to have fueled the whistleblower firm’s continued voracious appetite for this type of litigation.
Although the State of Illinois has the right to intervene and lead the prosecution of these actions, for the past several years the Office of the Illinois Attorney General has generally declined to intervene in these actions. Unfortunately, when this occurs, the Illinois False Claims Act permits a whistleblower claimant to proceed on its own with the litigation. In almost all cases in which the State has declined to intervene, the whistleblower firm has elected to proceed on its own with its tax-related claims.
The continued activity in this area underscores the need for the Illinois General Assembly to address and pass House Bill 0074 – legislation carefully crafted, through negotiations with the Illinois Attorney General’s office, to modify the procedure for state tax-related False Claims Act litigation in Illinois. The legislation would vastly improve the current False Claims Act situation by modifying the law as follows:
- Requiring whistleblowers with state tax-related claims to first disclose their claims [...]