INSIDE SALT
INSIDE SALT
In-Depth Coverage of Issues Surrounding State and Local Tax
INSIDE SALT
In-Depth Coverage of Issues Surrounding State and Local Tax
Local Tax
Subscribe to Local Tax's Posts

Ohio Supreme Court Rules City of Cleveland’s Taxation of Nonresident NFL Players’ Compensation Out-Of-Proportion to Games Played at the Browns’ Stadium

by | May 27, 2015 | , , ,

On April 30, 2015, out-of-state professional football players earned victories against the City of Cleveland, Ohio.  In a pair of cases decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, the court first struck the City’s method of allocating a nonresident professional athlete’s compensation as unconstitutional, and later that day ruled that the city tax cannot reach the income of a nonresident athlete who was not present in the Cleveland when the Browns hosted his team.

In Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Bd. of Review, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1623 (Ohio Apr. 30, 2015), Hunter Hillenmeyer, a former linebacker for the Chicago Bears, appealed the denial of his claims for refunds of income taxes paid to Cleveland.  Hillenmeyer argued that he paid too much tax to the city because the city’s method of allocating his compensation overstated his income earned in the city.  Cleveland had applied a “games-played” method to allocate a nonresident professional athlete’s income, meaning that the city’s taxing ratio was the number of games played in Cleveland over the total number of games played during a year.  Under this method, a visiting football player who travels to Cleveland for one game out of a 20 game season (including preseason and regular season games in a non-playoff season) would have 5 percent of his income allocated to and taxable by the city.

Hillenmeyer argued that this method ignored the fact that his compensation, like that of other players in the National Football League (NFL), was based not only on games played, but also on a mandatory mini camp following the NFL draft, preseason training camp (including preseason games, practices and meetings), practices and game preparation during the regular season, and postseason games and practice (if necessary).  None of these other activities occurred in Cleveland.

The court agreed with Hillenmeyer, finding the city’s games-played method overstated Hillenmeyer’s Cleveland income tax liability.  The court ruled the games-played method unconstitutional on due process grounds on the basis that it imposed tax on income earned outside of Cleveland.  The court reasoned that for taxation of a nonresident’s compensation to comport with due process, the tax base—the work performed—must be performed in the taxing jurisdiction.  Additionally, relying on precedent applying the state income tax to a nonresident Cincinnati Reds player, the court also held that a nonresident professional athlete’s total work performed should include not only games played, but all activities for which the athlete was compensated, including preseason training.

Applying these principles, the court adopted Hillenmeyer’s proposed method of allocation—utilized by other jurisdictions—and termed the “duty-days” method, as consistent with due process.  Under the “duty-days” method, income is allocated based on the number of work days spent in a city over the total number of work days.  For Hillenmeyer, this equated to 2 days in Cleveland per game.  Applying this method to the years at issue, the court found that Hillenmeyer was entitled to refunds because less than 1.5 percent of his annual compensation was allocable to Cleveland.

Later the same day, in Saturday v. Cleveland [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Maryland Offers Attractive Amnesty Program – Even for Taxpayers Under Audit!

by , and | Apr 23, 2015 | , , , , ,

Starting September 1, 2015, the Comptroller of Maryland (Comptroller) will offer qualifying taxpayers that failed to file or pay certain taxes an opportunity to remit tax under very attractive penalty and interest terms.  The 2015 Tax Amnesty Program (Program) is the first offered in Maryland since 2009, when the state raised nearly $30 million, not including approximately $20 million collected the following year under approved payment plans.  The amnesty program offered before that (in 2001) brought in $39.4 million.  Consistent with the Maryland amnesty programs offered in the past, the Program will apply to the state and local individual income tax, corporate income tax, withholding taxes, sales and use taxes, and admissions and amusement taxes.

The Program was made law by Governor Larry Hogan when he signed Senate Bill 763, available here, after two months of deliberation in the legislature.  While the Program is scheduled to run through October 30, 2015, the Comptroller has a history of informally extending these programs beyond their codified period.  For companies that are nervous about potential assessments following the Gore and ConAgra decisions, the amnesty offers an opportunity that should be evaluated.

Perks  

The Program’s main benefits include:

  1. Waiver of 50 percent of the interest;
  2. Waiver of all civil penalties (except previously assessed fraud penalties); and
  3. A bar on all criminal prosecutions arising from filing the delinquent return unless the charge is already pending or under investigation by a state prosecutor.

Qualification

The Program is open to almost all businesses, even if under audit or in litigation.  The statute provides for only two classifications of taxpayers that do not qualify:

  1. Taxpayers granted amnesty under a Maryland Amnesty Program held between 1999-2014; and
  2. Taxpayers eligible for the 2004 post-SYL settlement period relating to Delaware Holding Companies.

Because the Program’s enacting statute does not prohibit participants from being under audit, or even those engaged in litigation with the Comptroller, even taxpayers with known issues and controversy may find the amnesty an attractive vehicle to reach resolution of a controversy with the state.

Practice Note

Because the range of taxpayers eligible for the Program is so broad, we encourage all businesses to evaluate whether participation will benefit them.  Given that past Maryland amnesty programs excluded taxpayers over a certain size (based on employee count), large companies who were not able to resolve uncertain exposure in the state should evaluate this new offering.  If your business is currently under audit (or concerned about any tax obligations from previous years), please contact the authors to evaluate whether the Program is right for you.



read more

District of Columbia’s Transfer Pricing Enforcement Program and Combined Reporting Regime: Taking Two Bites of the Same Apple

by , and | Apr 20, 2015 | , , , , , ,

In his recent article, “A Cursory Analysis of the Impact of Combined Reporting in the District”, Dr. Eric Cook claims that the District of Columbia’s (D.C. or the District) newly implemented combined reporting tax regime is an effective means of increasing tax revenue from corporate taxpayers, but it will have little overlap with D.C.’s ongoing federal-style section 482 tax enforcement.  Dr. Cook is chief executive officer of Chainbridge Software LLC, whose company’s product and services have been utilized by the District to analyze corporations’ inter-company transactions and enforce arm’s length transfer pricing principles.  Combined reporting, (i.e., formulary apportionment, as it is known in international tax circles) and the arm’s length standard, are effectively polar opposites in the treatment of inter-company taxation.  It is inappropriate for the District (and other taxing jurisdictions) to simultaneously pursue both.  To do so seriously risks overtaxing District business taxpayers and questions the coherence of the District’s tax regime.

History

Both combined reporting and 482 adjustments have had a renaissance in the past decade.  Several tax jurisdictions, including the District, enacted new combined reporting requirements to increase tax revenue and combat perceived tax planning by businesses.  At the same time, some tax jurisdictions, once again including the District, have stepped up audit changes based on use of transfer pricing adjustment authority.  This change is due in part to new availability of third-party consultants and the interest in the issue by the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC).  States have engaged consultants, such as Chainbridge, to augment state capabilities in the transfer pricing area.  At the request of some states, the MTC is hoping to launch its Arm’s Length Audit Services (ALAS)[1] program.  States thus have increasing external resources available for transfer-pricing audits.

International Context

A similar discussion regarding how to address inter-company income shifting is occurring at the international level, but with a fundamentally important different conclusion.  The national governments of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G-20 are preparing to complete (on a more or less consensual basis) their Base Erosion and Profit Shifting action plan.  This plan will reject formulary apportionment as a means of evaluating and taxing inter-company transactions.[2]  Thus, in the international context, formulary apportionment and transfer pricing adjustment authority are not seen as complementary, but instead are seen as mutually exclusive alternatives.  The history of formulary apportionment in international context sheds light on why states make a mistake when they seek to use both combined reporting and transfer pricing adjustments.

A combined reporting basis of taxation seeks to treat the members of a consolidated group as a single entity, consolidating financial accounts of the member entities and allocating a portion of the consolidated income to the taxing jurisdiction based on some formula or one or more apportionment factors.  Under the arm’s length approach, individual entities of a consolidated group within a single jurisdiction are treated (generally) as stand-alone entities and taxed according to the arm’s length value (the value that would be realized by independent, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Inside the New York Budget Bill: New York City Tax Reform

by | Apr 3, 2015 | , , , ,

The New York Legislature has passed bills related to the 2015–2016 budget (S2009-B/A3009-B and S4610-A/A6721-A, collectively referred to herein as the Budget Bill) containing several significant “technical corrections” to the New York State corporate income tax reform enacted in 2014, along with sales tax provisions and amendments to reform New York City’s General Corporation Tax.  This post is the eighth in a series analyzing the New York Budget Bill, and summarizes the amendments to reform New York City’s General Corporation Tax.

Background

In 2014, New York State enacted sweeping reforms with respect to its taxation of corporations, including eliminating the tax on banking corporations, enacting economic nexus provisions, amending the combined reporting provisions and implementing customer-based sourcing.  New York City’s tax structure, however, was not changed at that time, resulting in concern among taxpayers about having to comply with two completely different sets of rules for New York State and New York City, and concern from representatives of the New York City Department of Finance, who would have lost the benefit of the joint audits that they currently conduct with New York State and the automatic conformity to any New York State audit changes resulting from separately conducted New York State audits.

Although it came down to the wire, the Budget Bill did make the necessary changes to largely conform the New York City corporate franchise tax provisions to those in place for New York State.  These changes will be effective as of January 1, 2015, which is the same general effective date for the New York State corporate tax reform.

Differences Between New York State and City Tax Laws

Even after passage of the Budget Bill, there remain some differences in the tax structures of New York State and New York City.  Some examples include the following:

  • New York State has economic nexus provisions, but New York City does not (except for credit card banks).
  • New York State will phase out its alternative tax on capital (with rate reductions implemented until the rate is 0 percent in 2021; different, lower rates apply for qualified New York manufacturers), and the maximum amount of such tax is capped at $5 million (for corporations that are not qualified New York manufacturers). Not only will New York City not phase out such alternative tax, it has increased the cap to $10 million, less a $10,000 deduction.  Also, New York City will not have a lower cap for manufacturers.
  • Under New York State’s corporate tax reform, a single tax rate is imposed on the business income base for all taxpayers (except for favorable rates for certain taxpayers, such as qualified New York manufacturers), with the amount of such rate being decreased from 7.1 percent to 6.5 percent in 2016. Qualified New York manufacturers are subject to a 0 percent tax rate on the business income base.  In the Budget Bill implementing New York City’s tax reform, there is no similar rate reduction.  Furthermore, instead of using a single rate for all taxpayers (except [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Louisiana Supreme Court Upholds Bundling Portable Toilet Leases and Cleaning Services, but Not Sure About True Object of Resulting Transactions

by | Mar 16, 2015 | , , , ,

If you are ever waiting in line for portable toilet facilities at the St. Patty’s Day Parade and in need of something to think about, consider the property and service you are about to use: Is it the lease of tangible personal property, the provision of a cleaning and waste removal service, or both? The Supreme Court of Louisiana grappled with this fundamental sales and use tax issue in Pot-O-Gold Rentals, LLC v. City of Baton Rouge, No. 2014-C-2154 (La. Jan. 16, 2015). Approaching the provision of toilets and services as a single transaction and finding the true object to be unclear, the court interpreted the taxing statute narrowly and ruled in favor of the taxpayer. Underlying the opinion is an unusually broad, all-or-nothing bundling approach to the taxability of goods and services provided together.

The City of Baton Rouge taxes the lease of tangible personal property but does not tax the provision of cleaning services. The taxpayer provided both: a customer could lease portable toilets, could purchase toilet cleaning services, or could lease toilets and purchase cleaning services together. There was no question that services alone were nontaxable or that the lease of toilets alone was taxable. The issue was how tax should apply when toilets and cleaning services were provided together. The taxpayer had collected tax on the charges for the toilets but had not collected tax on charges for services in such transactions.

Baton Rouge assessed sales tax on the services where toilets also had been provided. The taxpayer challenged the assessment and won summary judgment in its favor, with the trial court allowing the splitting of the transaction into taxable and nontaxable components. The Court of Appeals reversed, No. 2013 CA 1323 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Sept. 17, 2014), holding that the cleaning service and toilet lease components of combined contracts could not be split and addressed separately. That court then applied the true object test to determine that the entire bundled transaction should be treated as a taxable lease.

The Supreme Court reversed in a per curiam opinion, taking the bundled approach of the Court of Appeals but reaching the opposite conclusion on taxability. The Supreme Court observed that it was unclear whether providing tangible personal property in connection with waste removal services constituted the provision of a nontaxable service, comparing the Louisiana Department of Revenue’s Revenue Rulings 06-012 (Aug. 23, 2006) (providing dumpsters with trash removal service is nontaxable) and 06-013 (Sept. 19, 2006) (providing portable toilets with cleaning services is taxable). Given that the true object of such a transaction was “debatable,” the canon of reading a taxing statute narrowly against the state and in favor of the taxpayer applied: The transaction was nontaxable.

Underlying both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions was a very broad, all-or-nothing approach to taxability. Where many states would view this type of transaction as a taxable lease of property coupled with nontaxable cleaning services that were not “necessary to complete [...]

Continue Reading



read more

More Tax Money for the City of Chicago in 2015: Broader Bases, Increased Rates and Lesser Credit

by | Jan 8, 2015 | , , , , ,

The City of Chicago’s (City’s) 2015 budget includes a number of changes to taxing ordinances found in titles 3 and 4 of the Chicago Municipal Code.  The City of Chicago Department of Finance has notified taxpayers and tax collectors of the amendments, effective January 1, 2015, via a notice posted on its website.  The text of the amendments can be found on the Office of the City Clerk’s website.  The amendments, designed to bolster the City’s coffers, affect multiple City taxes by enlarging tax bases, increasing tax rates and tightening credit mechanisms.  The amendments include:

  • Hotel Accommodations Tax(Section 3-24-020(A))
    • The definition of “operator” (the tax collector) was amended to include: (1) any person that receives or collects consideration for the rental or lease of hotel accommodations; and (2) persons that facilitate the rental or lease of hotel accommodations for consideration, whether on-line, in person or otherwise.
    • A definition of “gross rental or leasing charge” (the tax base) was added that excludes “separately stated optional charges” unrelated to the use of hotel accommodations.
  • Use Tax for Non-titled Personal Property(Section 3-27-030(D))
    • A credit is available for sales and use “tax properly due” and “actually paid” to another municipality against the City’s 1 percent use tax imposed on the use in the City of non-titled tangible personal property that was purchased outside of the City.  The added definitions of “tax properly due” and “tax actually paid” exclude other municipal taxes that are rebated, refunded, or otherwise returned to the taxpayer or its affiliate.
  • Personal Property Lease Transaction Tax
    • The exemption from the tax for a “car sharing organization” (i.e., Zipcar) was eliminated.  (Sections 3-32-020(A) (definition) and 3-32-050(A)(13) (exemption))
    • The definition of “lease price” or “rental price” (the tax base) was amended to exclude nontaxable, separately-stated charges only if they are optional.  (Section 3-32-020(K))
    • The tax rate was increased from 8 percent to 9 percent.  (Section 3-32-030(B))
  • Amusement Tax
    • The amusement tax was amended to be imposed on the full charge paid for the privilege of using a “special seating area” such as a luxury suite or skybox (Section 4-156-020(F)).  Credit against this tax is available in the amount of any other taxes the City imposes on the same charges (for example, food and beverage charges) if the taxes are separately-stated and paid.  Previously, tax was imposed on 60 percent of the charge for a special seating area and did not include a credit mechanism.
    • Credit against the amusement tax was eliminated for franchise fees paid to the City for the right to use the public way or to do business in the City.  (Section 4-156-020(J))
    • The amendments eliminated the additional tax imposed on ticket sellers (Section 4-156-033).  The tax was imposed on sellers selling tickets from a location other than where the taxable amusement occurs on the amount of the service fee (as distinguished from the taxable admission charge).  Now, all ticket sellers must [...]

      Continue Reading


read more

Bear Down: In a Preseason Loss to Cook County’s Poor Play, the Appellate Court Finds Chicago Bears Ticket Holder Amenities Taxable

by | Sep 4, 2014 | , , ,

The First District of the Illinois Appellate Court, in Chicago Bears Football Club v. Cook County Department of Revenue, 2014 IL App (1st) 122892 (Aug. 6, 2014), has  affirmed an administrative determination finding the Chicago Bears owe Cook County over $4.1 million in amusement tax and related interest, on the basis that the amenities and privileges enjoyed by Bears premium ticket holders are taxable admission charges.  The ordinance at issue imposes tax on “admission fees or other charges paid for the privilege to enter, to witness or to view such amusement” but excludes “any separately stated charges for non-amusement services or for sales of tangible personal property.”  Cook County, Ill. Code of Ordinances, part I, ch. 74, art. X, § 74-392(a), (e).

The charges at issue include those for club level seats, luxury suites and the Skyline Suite.  For club level seats, the assigned seat location varies from the 50-yard line to the end zone.  On the face of the ticket, the charge for the seat and for the amenity license is separately stated.  The price of the seat is constant regardless of location, while the price of the license varies depending on the seat location.  Amenities provided to a club seat ticket holder include access to a “club lounge” for use before, during and after the game.  The lounge has buffet and bar areas (food and beverage not included in ticket price), better food selection than that available in the regular seating area and high-definition televisions for viewing the Bears game in progress and other National Football League games.  A club level ticket holder cannot view the entire field from the lounge.  Other amenities provided include rights to early ticket purchases to playoff games and non-Bears game events at Soldier Field, special parking privileges, invitations to autograph sessions and merchandise giveaways, free gameday programs and invitations to appreciation events year-round.

The luxury suites provide a private enclosed area for up to 20 guests.  Seating is not assigned.  Tickets list a single price.  Amenities of the suite include individual temperature controls, private bathrooms and high-definition televisions.  Food and beverage generally are not included in the ticket price.  Other available amenities include first option to use the suite for most non-Bears events at Soldier Field, travel arranged by the Bears for certain away games, invitations to non-football gameday events, participation in gameday drawings for special prizes, parking passes, special recognition in Bears publications and invitations to appreciation events year-round.

The Skyline Suite is an open area shared by multiple licensees and has non-assigned seating.  Food and beverage are included in the price.  Like luxury suite tickets, a single price is listed.  The same amenities available to luxury suite ticket holders are available to Skyline Suite ticket holders.

The appellate court affirmed the county’s assessment, concluding tax is owed on 100 percent of the club seat ticket price and on 60 percent of the luxury suite and Skyline Suite licenses.  For club level seats, the court reasons that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Is 2015 the Beginning of Mandatory Single Sales Factor Apportionment for D.C. Taxpayers?

by and | Aug 13, 2014 | , , , , ,

On July 14, 2014, the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Support Emergency Act of 2014 (2015 BSEA) was enacted after the D.C. Council voted to override Mayor Vincent Gray’s veto.  The act includes a tax relief package recommended by the D.C. Tax Revision Commission, and includes a change to D.C.’s apportionment formula, moving the city to single sales factor apportionment.

Since January 1, 2011, D.C. has required taxpayers to apportion their business income by the property-payroll double-weighted sales factor formula.  D.C. Code Ann. § 47-1810.02(d-1).  Among the provisions enacted in the 2015 BSEA, the District will require the apportionment of business income via a single sales factor formula, starting with tax years beginning after December 31, 2014.  D.C. Act 20-0377, § 7012(c)(10) (2014).  While the 2015 BSEA has only a temporary effect and expires on October 12, 2014, it serves as a stopgap until the process of enacting the permanent version, the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Support Act of 2014 (2015 BSA) is completed.  (See the single sales factor apportionment provision at D.C. Bill 20-0750, § 7012(a)(10) (2014).)  The 2015 BSA has not yet been enrolled and transmitted to the mayor.  After the mayor signs the 2015 BSA or the D.C. Council overrides his veto, the 2015 BSA will be sent to Congress for review.  If Congress and the President do not enact a joint resolution disapproving of the 2015 BSA, the 2015 BSA will become law, and the switch to single sales factor apportionment will be effective as of January 1, 2015. 

Even with this legislative change, D.C. taxpayers may have an argument for apportioning their business income under the three-factor apportionment formula.  In 1981, the District adopted the Multistate Tax Compact (Compact) as 1981 D.C. Law 4-17.  The Compact provides for the use of the evenly weighted three-factor sales-property-payroll formula.  Multistate Tax Compact, art. IV, sec. 9.  The Compact permits the taxpayer to elect to apportion his business income under the city’s apportionment formula or under the Compact’s three-factor formula.  Multistate Tax Compact, art. III, sec. 1.  In 2013, D.C. repealed and reenacted the statute codifying the Compact, D.C. Code § 47-441.  However, D.C. did not re-enact Article III, Elements of Income Tax Laws, and Article IV, Division of Income.  The repeal of the two articles was effective as of July 30, 2013.  D.C. Act 20-130, §§ 7342(a), (b) (2013); D.C. Act 20-204, §§ 7342(a), (b) (2013); D.C. Law 20-61, §§ 7342(a), (b) (2013).

D.C. repealed and reenacted the Compact in reaction to litigation involving taxpayers that elected to use the three-factor apportionment formula under the Compact instead of the state-mandated apportionment formulas.  See Gillette Co. et al. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 209 Cal.App. 4th 938 (2012); Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 146440 (Mich. Jul. 14, 2014); Health Net, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, No. TC 5127 (Or. T.C. 2014).  The California Court of Appeal and Michigan Supreme Court have upheld the taxpayers’ use of the Compact election.

Following the theories being advanced in [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The Illinois Two-Step: Final Sales Tax Sourcing Regulations May Cause Sales to be Sourced outside the State

by | Aug 8, 2014 | , ,

Localities expecting more tax dollars due to the elimination of the controversial order acceptance test may be sorely disappointed.  Application of the final sales tax sourcing regulations, effective as of June 25, 2014 (see 38 Ill. Reg. 14292), may actually increase the number of sales that are sourced outside of the state, such that more sales are subject to the 6.25 percent Use Tax rate instead of the higher Retailers’ Occupation Tax rates that include additional local rates.

Background: Moving from a Test Favoring In-State Sourcing to a Neutral Approach

In previous posts we provided the background on the litigation and policy factors driving this new regulation. See Illinois Department of Revenue Intends to Extend Its Multifactor Post-Hartney Sourcing Regulations to Interstate Transactions; Illinois Regional Transportation Authority Suffers A Setback In Its Sales Tax Sourcing Litigation. Suffice it to say that Illinois sales tax sourcing has been a contentious issue. But Illinois local government units may now find that the revenue impact of these new regulations is worse that the sourcing issues that they attempt to cure: Where the previous regime had tended to source sales to Illinois if part of the retailing activity occurred in the state, the new regulations treat in-state and out-of-state locations equally and attempt to source sales to the location with the best claim on the retailing activity.

Step One: Can a Location Claim at Least Three of Five Primary Selling Activities?

The first part of the test looks to five primary selling activities. If at least three of the primary selling activities occur in one business location, then the sales are sourced to that location. See 86 Ill. Admin. Code 220.115(c)(1), (2). (Note: These sourcing regulations are codified in parallel under several chapters of the Illinois Administrative Code. See 86 Ill. Admin. Code 220.115, 270.115, 320.115, 370.115, 395,115, 630.120, 670.115, 690.115, 693.115, 695.115. For convenience we will cite to 86 Ill. Admin. Code 220.115, but parallel provisions exist in the other regulations.) The primary activity factors are as follows:

Broadly speaking, the primary selling activities would likely result in headquarters-based sourcing as long as the business has a centralized headquarters with personnel that have the authority to bind the seller and personnel issuing invoices and processing payments. Additionally, there appears to be an overlap between the first two activities: If salespersons have authority to bind the retailer to a sale, then it would seem that the second factor, where the binding action takes place, would also be implicated.

Step Two: If No Location Has a Majority of Primary Selling Activities, then the Headquarters and Inventory Locations Compete for Sourcing Based on Primary and Secondary Factors

Assuming that no single location can claim three primary selling activities, the test then turns to the second step, in which both primary and secondary selling activities are considered in determining whether the sales should be sourced to the headquarters location or the inventory [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Illinois Appellate Court’s Expansive Interpretation of a Taxing Ordinance Swallows a Sale for Resale Exemption

by | Jul 30, 2014 | , , , , ,

The First District of the Illinois Appellate Court, in Ford Motor Company v. Chicago Department of Revenue, 2014 IL App (1st) 130597 (June 27, 2014), recently held that Ford Motor Company (Ford) owes City of Chicago vehicle fuel tax on 100 percent of the fuel it purchased and dispensed into the tanks of cars it manufactured in Chicago, even though Ford offered proof that 98 percent of the fuel was resold to car dealerships around that nation.

The court relied on the language of the taxing ordinance, which imposes tax on the “privilege of purchasing or using, in the City of Chicago, vehicle fuel purchased in a sale at retail.”  The court, focusing only on the first portion of that provision, found Ford “used” the fuel in Chicago, on the basis that “use” is defined to include “dispensing fuel into a vehicle’s fuel tank,” an activity Ford did when it transferred fuel from its storage tanks into the tanks of the cars it manufactured.

For the “sale at retail” element, defined as “any sale to a person for that person’s use or consumption and not for resale to another,” the court rejected Ford’s argument that it resold 98 percent of its purchased fuel to dealerships on the basis that Ford had introduced insufficient proof.  The court disregarded Ford’s sample invoice that included a line item charge for 10 gallons of fuel because a supporting affidavit from Ford did not confirm that the invoiced amount was the amount actually in the tank of that specific car at the time of delivery.  The court then, somewhat presumptively, inferred that the invoiced amount must be the amount that Ford initially dispensed into the car, before consuming some fuel during delivery, so that “the amount invoiced was to reimburse Ford Motor Company for fuel that it purchased and used to produce and prepare its new cars for delivery. …”  Additionally, the court considered Ford’s failure to rebut the City’s evidence that no Ford dealership in Chicago had remitted fuel tax consistent with the conclusion that Ford was not reselling fuel; the court did not cite any authority for the proposition that subsequent tax collection is a necessary element of the statutory “resale” provision.

Ford also raised constitutional concerns that were not considered very seriously by the court.  For example, was there sufficient nexus between the City and Ford’s use of the fuel placed into cars it transferred to dealerships?  Moreover, the court did not consider the conceptual tax issue of pyramiding, as the ultimate vehicle purchaser will presumably pay tax (in almost all locations in the country) on the full price paid for the vehicle, which will cover the cost of the fuel.  In any event, by focusing on the “use” and not the “resale” aspect of the taxing ordinance, the court fails to consider that the ordinance may not apply to Ford at all.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery