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
Nationwide Importance
Subscribe to Nationwide Importance's Posts

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

by and | Apr 8, 2016 | , , ,

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…)



read 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 and | Mar 31, 2016 | , , , , , ,

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



read more

Alabama Legislature Rejects (Yet Another) Attempted Digital Tax Expansion

by , and | Mar 21, 2016 | , , , , ,

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



read more

California Supreme Court Denies BOE Petition for Review in Lucent Technologies

by , and | Jan 26, 2016 | , , , , , ,

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



read more

Michigan Backs Off Cloud Tax, Refund Opportunities Available

by , and | Jan 14, 2016 | , , , , , ,

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



read more

McDermott Lawyers Publish Reference Guide on State Taxation of Meal Delivery

by | Jan 12, 2016 | , , , , ,

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.



read more

Tax Breaks for Data Centers: The Numbers Might Be Cloudy

by | Dec 23, 2015 | , , , ,

States are competing aggressively to attract data centers with various tax incentives. Data center companies and their business customers are taking them up on their offers. But are these incentives really a good deal for the businesses? Tax incentives that seem attractive at first glance may not be beneficial when they are examined in the context of the entire tax picture, especially in the unique, uncertain, and developing world of state taxation of technology and computer services.

With the rise of global commerce, cloud computing, streaming video and a wide array of other internet-related businesses, data centers have become big businesses.  In 2014, the colocation data center industry reached $25 billion in annual revenue globally, with North American companies accounting for 43 percent of that revenue.[1]

To get in on the action, states have been trying to outdo one another by offering a slew of competing tax breaks to the industry. According to the Associated Press, states have provided about $1.5 billion in data center tax breaks over the past 10 years.[2]   Some states have gone even further, providing tax incentives to the entire data center industry through changes in the tax laws themselves. Such incentives can include reductions or exemptions from sales and use taxes on data center products or services, favorable income tax rates for data center companies and favorable property tax rules for data center assets. According to a recent analysis by the Associated Press, at least 23 states provide such statutory data center tax incentives.[3] Just a few of the most recent examples include a sales tax exemption for data center equipment in Michigan,[4] a broadening of the sales tax exemption for data center electricity and equipment in North Carolina[5] and a favorable apportionment formula for data centers in Virginia.[6]  Importantly, many of these incentives apply not only to the data centers themselves, but also to their customers.

Businesses considering whether to take advantage of these incentives would be well advised to consider not only the potential benefit from any particular tax incentive, but also whether the decision would affect their tax picture as a whole. Because of the current uncertain and changing landscape for state and local taxation of technology and computer services, the analysis of these incentives for data centers and their customers can be particularly complex.

One item that a taxpayer might overlook when considering whether to take advantage of an incentive program is what affect, if any, the choice of location might have on the taxpayer’s property factor for income tax apportionment purposes. Obviously, location of a company’s technology equipment in a data center under a colocation agreement will cause the company’s in-state property factor to increase due to its equipment being located in the state. However, data center customers also should be aware that local tax authorities might also argue that the colocation payments themselves constitute consideration for the use of real or tangible personal property and thus the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Financial Statement Countdown for Remote Sellers Selling into Alabama

by , and | Dec 16, 2015 | , , ,

Remote sellers making sales into Alabama have until January 1, 2016, to begin collecting sales tax regardless of their physical presence in the state or consider whether there is any impact on financial statement issues as a result of non-collection.

This summer, the Alabama Department of Revenue issued a surprising new regulation, § 810-6-2-.90.03. This rule specifically provides that a remote seller with more than $250,000 of sales into the state that also meets the provisions of the “doing business” statute must register for a license and collect and remit sales/use tax to the state. Notably, the list of activities that are considered “doing business” includes solicitation of sales using cable television advertising; substantial solicitation of sales plus benefitting from any banking; financing; debt collection; telecommunication; or marketing activities occurring in this state; any contact with the state sufficient to allow Alabama to impose a sales and use tax collection requirement under the U.S. Constitution. Ala. Code § 40-23-68(b)(9). The rule goes into effect January 1, 2016.

If this had happened 10 years ago, the response would be simple – Alabama’s economic nexus threshold is clearly unconstitutional under Quill. However, several developments, both legal and environmental, have made the analysis more complex. First, the Alabama legislature has provided an option to remote sellers to use the “Simplified Sellers Use Tax Remittance” process. This program creates almost the simplest tax calculation and remittance process possible: one rate, no exemptions, single jurisdiction filing. Alabama is surely counting on the Supreme Court of the United States to find that this simplified process removes the burden which concerned the Court in Quill. There are, of course, numerous arguments against this scenario; many of them quite strong. Nevertheless, Alabama’s clever, parallel compliance juggernaut does mandate some respect.

Second, Justice Anthony Kennedy clearly feels it is high time for the holding in Quill to be relegated to an era when only academics knew of the internet. One justice’s comments do not mean that sculptors should begin carving Quill’s headstone, but the Court already has at least two justices that do not believe the dormant commerce clause exists at all. Today, there is clearly the highest risk ever of some type of melting of the Quill iceberg.

So what does this mean for remote sellers with Alabama customers?  First—of course such sellers could begin collecting, but, some sellers philosophically believe in the underpinnings of Quill and other sellers may find collection, even under the simplified system, financially oppressive and/or administratively difficult. For those sellers that will not or cannot comply, the immediate questions that must be answered are: (1) What are the risks of not collecting; and (2) Do those risks rise to the level of financial statement issues?  Obviously the first risk is that with every sale, the seller may be incurring tax liability that it otherwise could have passed on to its customers. How real this risk is dovetails with the second issue. In determining the risk of probable loss (or other financial statement standard), [...]

Continue Reading



read more

McDermott Partner Featured on The Kojo Nnamdi Show

by | Dec 16, 2015 | ,

Yesterday, McDermott Will & Emery partner Steve Kranz was a featured guest on WAMU 88.5’s The Kojo Nnamdi Show, one of NPR’s most prestigious talk radio shows in the greater Washington, DC area. Kranz participated in this week’s Tech Tuesday segment titled “Taxing Your Online Shopping Spree” which focused on the current state of internet sales tax impositions in the United States and various proposals to tax e-commerce that are currently being considered by Congress and state legislatures. Kranz was joined by fellow guests Steve DelBianco, Executive Director at NetChoice, and Bill Fox, Director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Tennessee.

A permanent link to this informative discussion is available here.



read more

D.C. Council Holds Hearing on New Tax to Fund Unprecedented Family Leave Benefits

by , and | Dec 3, 2015 | , , ,

Yesterday, the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole held an advocates-only hearing on the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2015 (Act), which was introduced on October 6, 2015 by a majority of councilmembers. As introduced, this bill establishes a paid leave system for all District of Columbia (District) residents and all workers employed in the District. It allows for up to 16 weeks of paid family and medical leave, which would more than double the amount of weeks (and dollar cap) of any U.S. state-sponsored paid-leave program. While other state paid family and medical leave programs are paid by the employees themselves, the benefits for employees of a “covered employer” (i.e., private companies in the District) would be funded by a one percent payroll tax on the employer. There has been talk of setting a minimum threshold of employees (i.e., 15-20 employee minimum) for an employer to be covered by the Act, although such a requirement does not exist in the current draft. Because the District cannot tax the federal government or employers outside its borders, District residents working for one of these entities are required to contribute to the fund individually. This would result in a strange dynamic that taxes District residents differently based on whether they work for a covered employer or not. Self-employed District residents have the ability to opt-out altogether (and not contribute to the fund or receive benefits) under the Act.

The definition of “covered employee” is drafted in such a way that temporary and transitory employees (i.e., “employed during some or all the 52 calendar weeks immediately preceding the qualifying event”) could claim the full 16 weeks of benefits and have no obligation to return to the job. The Act does exclude employees that spend more than 50 percent of their time working in a state other than District; however, this exclusion would not apply to employees that do not spend a majority of their time in any one state.

A qualifying individual is one who becomes unable to perform their job functions because of a serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition or a new child. Claims are filed with the District Government and the District must notify the employer within five business days of a claim being filed. Beneficiaries will receive 100 percent of their average weekly wages (up to $1,000 per week) plus 50 percent of their average weekly wages in excess, with a weekly cap of $3,000.

Practice Note:

Advocates testifying yesterday expressed concerns that the proposed one percent rate (considered high by many) is unrealistic and would fall significantly short of funding the generous benefits—although no definitive data is available at this time. Aside from highlighting the unprecedented breadth of the benefits, many advocates also noted the significant loopholes in the current draft that could lead to unintended—and potentially unconstitutional—consequences, if passed. At this point, it appears that the Council has [...]

Continue Reading



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