Audits Archives - Page 5 of 11

Audits

BREAKING NEWS: Sales Tax Battle Breaks Out in South Dakota; Quill’s Last Stand?

by McDermott Will & Emery and Stephen P. Kranz | Apr 29, 2016 | Audits, Constitutional Issues, Nexus, Sales Tax, South Dakota, Transaction Taxes

This post is a follow-up to a previous post from April 21, 2016.

Introduction

On March 22, 2016, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law Senate Bill 106, which requires any person making more than $100,000 of South Dakota sales or more than 200 separate South Dakota sales transactions to collect and remit sales tax. The requirement applies to sales made on or after May 1, 2016.

The law clearly challenges the physical presence requirement under Quill, and that’s precisely what the legislature intended. The law seeks to force a challenge to the physical presence rule as soon as possible and speed that challenge through the courts.

As we discussed in our earlier post, the big question in response to the legislation was whether taxpayers should register to collect tax. For those who did not register, an injunction is now in place barring enforcement of the provisions until the litigation is resolved.

Last night and this morning two different declaratory judgment suits were filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of South Dakota regarding S.B. 106’s constitutionality, and more may follow. As has already been reported in a few outlets, one of these cases is American Catalog Mailers Association and NetChoice v. Gerlach (the ACMA Suit). In ACMA, the plaintiffs are trade associations representing catalog marketers and e-commerce retailers. The complaint can be found here.

What has yet to be widely reported is the other suit. This suit (the State Suit) was filed by South Dakota. Letters sent by South Dakota indicated that identified retailers needed to register by April 25. Because the new law does not become effective until May 1, many observers thought that South Dakota might wait to file until after that date. However, the suits have already been filed.

(more…)

Retailers, Such as IT and Pharmaceutical Vendors, Among Businesses Targeted by Texas Comptroller’s Proposed Rule Change

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Apr 19, 2016 | Audits, Income Tax, Texas, Transaction Taxes

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts recently proposed amendments to 34 Tex. Admin. Code 3.584 relating to the reduced rate available under the Texas Franchise Tax for retailers and wholesalers. These proposed revisions, which appear to formalize elements of informal guidance issued in August of 2015, have the potential to substantially impact a great number of businesses, specifically in the information technology and pharmaceutical industries.

The Texas Franchise Tax is imposed on taxable business entities, including corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies, doing business in the state of Texas. The generally applicable tax rate is 0.75 percent of “taxable margin”—which is itself computed under a complex set of statutes and regulations—however, the rate is reduced to 0.375 percent for entities “primarily engaged in retail or wholesale trade. To qualify for the reduced rate, a business must meet two statutory thresholds: first, it must earn more revenue from retail or wholesale trade activities than it earns from all other business activities; and second, it must earn less than 50 percent of its retail or wholesale trade revenues from the sale of products it or an affiliate entity produces. Tex. Tax Code § 171.002(c). The current version of Rule 3.584 (the Rule) clarifies that, for purposes of the second statutory threshold, a product is not considered to be produced by the retailer if “modifications made to the acquired product do not increase its sales price by more than 10 percent.” In other words, there is a safe harbor under the Rule for retailers who make some modifications to products they sell; so long as those modifications do not increase the product’s sale price by more than 10 percent, the sales of those products will not factor into the second statutory threshold. This is currently the only guidance provided by regulation regarding the scope of the “primarily engaged in” standard.

(more…)

MTC Arm’s-Length Adjustment Service (Part II): “An Expression of Grief, Pity, or Concern”

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Apr 8, 2016 | Audits, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Transfer Pricing

Executive Summary

Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) transfer pricing program moving forward in some fashion;
Priority includes information sharing among participating states (and possibly their third party vendors) on transfer pricing issues. Because a formal agreement was found necessary, the scope of the information shared is presumed to include taxpayer specific information; and
States currently have significant inventory of transfer pricing audits that they admit they do not have the expertise to properly examine or defend in a protest.

The inaugural meeting (via conference call) of the Multistate Tax Commission’s Committee (Committee) addressing transfer pricing issues (ALAS) took place on April 7, 2016, and was certainly interesting. A predecessor Working Group had created an extensive plan that is intended to be implemented by the Committee over 4 years. The plan initially anticipated that approximately 10 states (at least) would agree to fund the cost of the multi-year program, but meeting that goal has not materialized. Instead, the Committee is moving forward hoping to add more states (or limit services provided) as the plan progresses. The anticipated program has multiple parts such as training, additional MTC staff resources and multistate transfer pricing audit and litigation support for participating states.

Ten states identified themselves on the call – only Pennsylvania was new to the process; the rest of the states on the call had all been involved in the predecessor Working Group. Also on the call was Eric Cook, co-founder of Chainbridge, the company that is currently involved in the controversial transfer pricing approach adopted by the District of Columbia (and previously by some other states). To no one’s surprise, all of the states agreed that Joe Garrett, Deputy Co-Commissioner of Revenue of Alabama, should be Chair of the Committee (he was the chair of the Working Group as well). The group will have monthly calls which are open for the public to listen in on. (more…)

Viral Marketers Beware – In Alabama, Sales Tax Nexus Created for Out-of-State Bookseller Even Though In-State Teachers Not Acting on Behalf of Seller

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Mar 31, 2016 | Alabama, Audits, Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

After a quarter of a century, the school book nexus cases continue to proliferate, delight and mystify. The latest installment in the saga is from Alabama. Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. 2931 v. State Of Alabama Department Of Revenue, Ala. Tax Tribunal, Dkt. No. S. 14-374 (March 25, 2016). Like the other cases, the question addressed is whether a vendor with no property or employees in the state nevertheless has nexus for sales tax collection purposes because of the activities of unrelated, and uncompensated, teachers in the state. Like all of the other cases, these teachers received unsolicited catalogs from the vendor and could either discard the materials or distribute them to their students. Like all of the other cases, if a teacher elected to distribute the materials, the teacher collected completed order forms and payments from the students and mailed the order and payments to the vendor. Like all of the other cases, the teacher distributed the order once received to the individual students that placed orders. Also, like all of the other cases the vendor provided bonus points to teachers based on the dollar amount ordered. The vendor intended the bonus points be used to purchase additional classroom materials – either from the vendor directly or through gift cards to another retailer.

In reaching its decision, the Alabama Tax Tribunal (the Court) restricted its analysis to the historical Quill physical presence standard. While noting that on the same facts courts in other states have been severely split on the issue of whether physical presence existed for such a vendor, the Court determined that the opinions finding physical presence were more persuasive. The Court quoted at length from Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue Servs., 38 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2012).

As with most of the other bookseller cases in which a court found substantial nexus existed, the Alabama Tax Tribunal focused on the Scripto language negating the importance of labels such as “agent,” “independent contractor,” and “representative.” This is a red-herring, as the correct analysis should be that regardless of the label, on whose behalf were the teachers acting. Evidence was introduced that the teachers were acting on behalf of their students, not the vendor. The Court, however, assumed this bedrock issue away by finding that regardless of on whose behalf the teachers were acting, because the teachers’ activities were substantially associated with Scholastic’s ability to establish and maintain a market in the state, this result was sufficient to establish physical presence for the vendor. According to the Court, it did not matter that the teachers did not receive any type of compensation from the vendor and did not intend to benefit the vendor. The only thing that mattered to the nexus analysis was that at the end of the day, the teachers were important to Scholastic’s maintenance of a market in the state.

But that cannot be the correct analysis. Otherwise, any advertising campaign that relied on word-of-mouth (and similarly any viral marketing campaign) would establish nexus [...]

Continue Reading

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

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.

Delaware Court Denies Most of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Unclaimed Property Gift Card False Claims Action

by Diann Smith and Stephen P. Kranz | Dec 1, 2015 | Audits, Delaware, False Claims Act, Nationwide Importance, Procedure, Unclaimed Property

Two years ago, a former employee of Card Fact, LLC (subsequently purchased by Card Compliant), a company providing gift card issuance and management services to retailers, filed a false claims action in Delaware alleging that his former company and its retailer clients concocted a scheme to avoid remitting unclaimed gift card funds to Delaware. Last week, the judge in the case issued a memorandum opinion on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. State of Delaware ex rel. French v. Card Compliant LLC, et al., C.A. No.: N13C-06-289 FSS [CCLD] (Del Sup. Ct. Nov. 23, 2015). While the opinion is likely disappointing to most of the defendants, it should not be read as a final victory for the state. There is still much to be decided in the case, as this was just a motion to dismiss and not a decision as to whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail.

The judge did however make several legal conclusions that are of import to Delaware companies. First, the judge determined that as to gift card liability that was initially incurred by the retailers but subsequently transferred to Card Fact (and its affiliates), the retailers remained the debtors with respect to the card owners, unless the customers consented to the delegation of debt. The judge found that the contractual agreements between the retailers and the Card Fact companies were not controlling. However, the judge did not specifically rule on gift card liabilities that were never transferred from the retailers to Card Fact, but instead were incurred directly by Card Fact after its relationship with the retailers began.

Second, the judge found that for defendants that were not C corporations, the second priority rule was to be applied based on the state of formation, not the principal place of business. This is contrary to most state laws and sets up a direct conflict between the states.

Finally, the judge found that because one of the retailers had previously been audited by Delaware (through Kelmar), it could not be a defendant in this false claims action. The judge dismissed this defendant entirely, even for claims that arose subsequent to the audit conclusion. The judge noted that “[i]f the auditor has given [the retailer] a bye, that is between the escheater and the auditor.” This is very good news for any company that has previously been audited by the state regarding the risk of a false claims action.

Practice Notes

For companies that have been audited by Delaware, the risk of a false claims action has likely been significantly reduced if not eliminated;
Unincorporated entities should investigate the indemnification provisions between their state of formation and state of principal place of business to determine the risk of choosing which state to remit to;
Companies using gift card entities or other liability allocation arrangements should review their disclosures and agreements with customers to verify appropriate consent and understanding regarding which entity holds the actual liability.

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS