INSIDE SALT

Washington’s Digital Ad Tax Enacted: Is Litigation Now Inevitable?

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | May 21, 2025 | Allocation/Apportionment, Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Washington

On May 20, 2025, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 5814, a sweeping tax bill that expands Washington’s retail sales and use tax to digital advertising services and a range of high-tech and IT services. The new law takes effect for sales occurring on and after October 1, 2025.

As we noted previously, this legislation marks a significant shift in Washington’s tax policy, extending sales tax to categories of traditionally exempt business-to-business services. With enactment, legal challenges – particularly under the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) – are ripe and appear inevitable.

WHAT THE LAW DOES

SB 5814 amends RCW 82.04.050 by redefining “sale at retail” to include “advertising services,” broadly covering both digital and nondigital forms of ad creation, planning, and execution. The law specifically includes:

Online referrals
Search engine marketing
Lead generation optimization
Web campaign planning
Digital ad placement
Website traffic analysis

However, the law expressly excludes services rendered in connection with:

Newspapers (RCW 82.04.214)
Printing or publishing (RCW 82.04.280)
Radio and television broadcasting
Out-of-home advertising (g., billboards, transit signage, event displays)

With these carve-outs, it is difficult to see how anything other than internet advertising remains subject to tax. The structure of the new tax facially discriminates against e-commerce and is barred by ITFA.

ITFA AND THE CERTAINTY OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE

ITFA prohibits states from imposing taxes that discriminate against digital services when comparable offline equivalents are exempt. While SB 5814 purports to cover both digital and nondigital advertising, the exclusions for nondigital forms of advertising cause it to target the digital side of the industry. For example, a digital banner ad will be taxed, whereas a banner towed by an airplane promoting the same product will not.

This distinction mirrors the structure of Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax, which has been tied up in litigation since its enactment in 2021. A Maryland trial court found that law facially violated ITFA and federal preemption principles. That litigation continues, and Washington now finds itself on a similar path.

HIGH-TECH AND IT SERVICES ARE NOW TAXABLE

In addition to digital advertising, SB 5814 extends the retail sales tax to high-tech services, including:

Custom website development
IT technical support and network operations
Data processing and data entry
In-person or live-virtual technical training

Like advertising, these intermediate services typically are purchased by businesses in support of operations rather than for end consumption. Taxing their sale introduces tax pyramiding and adds costs that will ultimately be passed on to consumers. For Washington’s tech-driven economy, this change will inflate prices and reduce competitiveness.

Local advertisers and businesses that rely on digital marketing and high-tech services will see these costs rise and lead to higher prices for consumers.

OUTLOOK

While SB 5814 is now law, its enforceability remains far from certain. Taxing digital advertising services while expressly excluding offline media places the new law on a collision course with ITFA. A legal challenge is all but guaranteed.

At the [...]

Continue Reading

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

Let the Shakedowns Begin: Tax False Claims Legislation in California

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Apr 22, 2025 | California, Constitutional Issues, False Claims Act, Nationwide Importance

Legislators in Sacramento, California, are mulling over one of the most (if not the most) troubling state and local tax bills of the past decade.

Senate Bill (SB) 799, introduced earlier this year and recently amended, would expand the California False Claims Act (CFCA) by removing the “tax bar,” a prohibition that exists in the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and the vast majority of states with similar laws.

If enacted, SB 799 will open the floodgates for a cottage industry of financially driven plaintiffs’ lawyers to act as bounty hunters in the state and local tax arena. California taxpayers would be forced to defend themselves in high-stakes civil investigations and/or litigation – even when the California Attorney General’s Office declines to intervene. As seen in other states, this racket leads to abusive practices and undermines the goal of voluntary compliance in tax administration.

While the CFCA is intended to promote the discovery and prosecution of fraudulent behavior, Senator Ben Allen introduced the bill specifically to “protect public dollars and combat fraud.” The enumerated list of acts that lead to a CFCA violation does not require a finding of civil fraud. In fact, a taxpayer who “knowingly and improperly avoids, or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or to any political subdivision” would be in violation of the CFCA (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651(a)(7)).

This standard is particularly inappropriate in the tax context and is tantamount to allowing vague accusations of noncompliance with the law, leading to taxpayers being hauled into court. Once there, taxpayers would be held hostage between an expensive legal battle and paying an extortion fee to settle. The CFCA is extremely punitive: Violators would be subject to (1) treble damages (i.e., three times the amount of the underreported tax, interest, and penalties), (2) an additional civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each violation, plus (3) the costs of the civil action to recover the damages and penalties (attorneys’ fees).

To the extent the action was raised by a private plaintiff (or relator) in a qui tam action, the recovered damages or settlement proceeds would be divided between the state and the relator, with the relator permitted to recover up to 50% of the proceeds (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(g)(3)). If the state attorney general or a local government attorney initiates the investigation or suit, a fixed 33% of the damages or settlement proceeds would be allotted to their office to support the ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(g)(1)).

Adding further insult to injury, the CFCA has its own statute of limitations independent of the tax laws. Specifically, the CFCA allows claims to be pursued for up to 10 years after the date the violation was committed (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12654(a)). A qui tam bounty hunter’s claim would supersede the tax statutes of limitations.

Next, the elements of a CFCA violation must only be shown “by a preponderance of the evidence” [...]

Continue Reading

Kentucky Legislature Ends Judicial Deference To State Agencies

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Apr 2, 2025 | Kentucky, Nationwide Importance

In a realignment of judicial review standards, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) veto of Senate Bill (SB) 84, effectively abolishing judicial deference to all agency interpretations of statutes and regulations. This development marks a shift in administrative law in the Commonwealth.

A RESPONSE TO CHEVRON AND TO KENTUCKY COURTS

SB 84 invokes the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and ended judicial deference to federal agency interpretations of statutes. The bill’s preamble provides:

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal judiciary’s deference to the interpretation of statutes by federal agencies as articulated in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and its progeny was unlawful.

However, SB 84 does more than align Kentucky with the new federal standard. It also repudiates the approach taken by Kentucky’s own courts. The bill notes that decisions such as Metzinger v. Kentucky Retirement Systems, 299 S.W.3d 541 (Ky. 2009), and Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission v. Estill County Fiscal Court, 503 S.W.3d 924 (Ky. 2016), which embraced Chevron-like deference at the state level, is a practice that the legislature now declares inconsistent with the separation of powers under the Kentucky Constitution.

KEY PROVISIONS: DE NOVO REVIEW MANDATED

The operative language of SB 84 creates two new sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) and amends an existing provision by establishing a de novo standard of review for agency, including the Kentucky Department of Revenue, interpretations:

An administrative body shall not interpret a statute or administrative regulation with the expectation that the interpretation of the administrative body is entitled to deference from a reviewing court. (New Section of KRS Chapter 13A.)
The interpretation of a statute or administrative regulation by an administrative body shall not be entitled to deference from a reviewing court. (New Section of KRS Chapter 13A.)
A court reviewing an administrative body’s action… shall apply de novo review to the administrative body’s interpretation of statutes, administrative regulations, and other questions of law. (New Section of KRS Chapter 446.)
The court shall apply de novo review of the agency’s final order on questions of law. An agency’s interpretation of a statute or administrative regulation shall not be entitled to deference from a reviewing court. (Amended KRS 13B.150.)

This means Kentucky courts must now independently review all legal interpretations made by agencies, including in tax cases before the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals, without any presumption of correctness.

A CONSTITUTIONAL FLASHPOINT

Governor Beshear vetoed the bill, arguing in his veto message that it violates the separation of powers by dictating to the judiciary how it should interpret laws. Governor Beshear’s message provides that:

Senate Bill 84 is unconstitutional by telling the judiciary what standard of review it must apply to legal cases…It prohibits courts from deferring to a state [...]

Continue Reading

Unclaimed Property Laws and the Health Industry: Square Peg, Round Hole

by Stephen P. Kranz, Diann Smith, Eric D. Carstens and Vanessa S. Torres | Mar 18, 2025 | Audits, False Claims Act, Unclaimed Property

The healthcare industry has recently become the target of increased scrutiny from multistate unclaimed property audits, likely due to the high volume of mergers, acquisitions, and private equity deals. These audits have shed light on the many complexities and challenges within the sector. Healthcare industry holders are often pressured by state auditors and administrators to fit a square peg in a round hole – something both they and their advocates should continue to actively push back against.

Identifying whether any “property” needs to be reported can be a significant challenge in an industry where a single patient transaction involves multiple parties and is governed by intricate business agreements, which are continuously updated and managed. Unclaimed property audits, however, are typically conducted with a narrow focus on a single holder and use standardized document requests designed for a broad range of businesses. This approach often leads to unrealistic expectations for record retention and management, which rarely align with the specific laws and practices of the healthcare industry.