Transaction Taxes Archives

Transaction Taxes

Texas Comptroller Proposes Rule Changes Cementing Tax on 130% of Marketplace Sales

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Sep 17, 2024 | Audits, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Texas, Transaction Taxes

In a controversial move, the Texas Comptroller is poised to amend Rule 3.330, Data Processing Services, effectively rewriting the rules to favor the contentious stance it has adopted in recent audits and litigation. This proposed amendment, which aims to cement the aggressive stance the Comptroller has taken in audits and litigation that a marketplace provider’s commission-based earnings are taxable “data processing services,” represents a significant departure from long-standing practices and highlights a disturbing trend of what is effectively a retroactive regulatory adjustment.

A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED CHANGES

The crux of the proposed amendment is the addition of paragraph (b)(5) to Rule 3.330, which the Comptroller explains is being added “to clarify that marketplace providers provide data processing services to their customers as they enter, retrieve, search, manipulate, and store data or information in the course of their business.” New paragraph (b)(5) provides that:

Marketplace provider services may be included in taxable data processing services when they involve the computerized entry, retrieval, search, compilation, manipulation, or storage of data or information provided by the purchaser or the purchaser’s designee. For example, services to store product listings and photographs, maintain records of transactions, and to compile analytics are taxable data processing services.

This new paragraph specifically targets the commissions that marketplace providers charge for facilitating sales, taxing them separately from the underlying transactions themselves. This is not just an expansion of the tax base; it’s a redefinition of what constitutes a taxable service, applying it in ways that were never intended under previous interpretations of the law that considered such commissions nontaxable auctioneer/brokerage fees.

WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS PROBLEMATIC

The Comptroller’s approach is problematic for several reasons, including:

Effective Retroactivity. The proposed amendment seeks to justify an aggressive (and questionable) agency position that the Comptroller has only recently begun to assert in audits and litigation after it quietly revoked a long-standing administrative ruling in 2020. The revocation of this ruling in 2020, without public notice or legislative approval, was a stark deviation from established practices. By changing the rules after the fact, the proposed amendment undermines the stability and predictability of the law.
Double Taxation. If a marketplace facilitates a sale where a consumer pays $100 and the marketplace earns a $30 commission, the proposed amendment would not only tax the $100 transaction but also the $30 commission. This results in an effective tax on 130% of marketplace sales, with the additional 30% a double tax on the portion of the sales proceeds paid to the marketplace provider as a commission. Under this scheme, the Comptroller is demanding that marketplace providers pay tax on 130% of the sales price and charge the consumer for tax on the 100% and the seller for the 30%.
Discriminatory Tax Under ITFA. The proposed amendment subjects commissions earned by online marketplace providers to taxation as data processing services while similar services provided offline, such as commissions earned by auctioneers of oil and gas leases, consignment stores, and real estate agents using [...]

Continue Reading

California Legislator Considers Digital Advertising Tax

by Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Mar 29, 2024 | Allocation/Apportionment, California, Constitutional Issues, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Senator Steven Glazer, chair of the California State Senate Revenue and Tax Committee, is treating data like the next gold rush and taking bold steps to mine this new vein of wealth with his proposed “Digital Data Extraction Tax Law.” While couched as a tax on “data extraction,” the base for the tax is digital advertising revenue. The draft proposal contains several gaps, including the tax rate and effective date, and we understand that Senator Glazer is not certain he will file it.

Senator Glazer modeled his proposed tax on Maryland’s digital advertising gross receipts (DAGR) tax approach but with a twist, aligning it with Tennessee’s digital barter tax proposal (House Bill 2234/Senate Bill 2065). While California’s bill attempts to cure the numerous legal infirmities present in Maryland’s DAGR tax, it suffers from many of the same fatal weaknesses.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

The bill’s stated intent is to tap into the supposedly “enormous economic rents” that the “largest” internet companies generate from the personal data they “extract” from their users. The draft bill would introduce a new tax on gross receipts from the sale of digital advertising services (digital ad tax). The digital ad tax would be imposed on persons engaged in “digital data extraction transactions,” defined as transactions where:

(i) a person sells advertisers information about or access to users of the person’s services, [and]

(ii) the person engages in a digital barter by providing services to a user in full or partial exchange for displaying advertisements to the user or collects data about the user.

Under the bill, persons with digital advertising revenue above a certain level would be deemed engaged in taxable activity. Additionally, the digital ad tax would only apply to persons with advertising revenue above a certain (currently unspecified) level but would provide a carve-out for news media entities. Revenue from the tax would be earmarked for a fund that supports local newspapers.

A troubling feature of the draft bill is its sourcing regime. The bill would require that those subject to the digital ad tax use personally identifiable information about those to whom the ads are served to source revenue from the advertising to either California or somewhere else. Specifically, the bill requires that sellers of digital advertising services capture and retain information, such as users’ GPS locations or IP addresses. A seller would be required to produce this information to tax authorities on audit. These requirements raise profound privacy issues.

Perhaps recognizing the myriad of legal challenges faced by Maryland’s DAGR tax, California’s bill attempts to limit its application to entities based on their revenue derived in the state. It also attempts to ward off challenges that the digital ad tax is a discriminatory tax on electronic commerce barred by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) by adding a bare statement that the “Legislature finds and declares . . . . [t]hat digital advertising is not substantially similar to traditional print [...]

Continue Reading

Remote Retailers Held Responsible for Tax Collection in Washington

by Troy M. Van Dongen and Elle Kaiser | Feb 6, 2024 | Franchise Tax, Income Tax, Nationwide Importance, Nexus, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes, Washington

If there’s a lesson to be learned from the Washington Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Orthotic Shop Inc. and S&F Corporation v. Department of Revenue, No. 39321-6-III (Jan. 23, 2024), it’s that the use of a marketplace does not eliminate a remote seller’s tax responsibilities, particularly for pre-Wayfair periods.

The dispute in Orthotic Shop involved a retailing business and occupation tax (B&O tax) and a retailing sales tax assessment against two merchants for sales they made on an online retailer’s website. The audit report asserted that the merchants were “retailers” who maintained a nexus to Washington because they maintained a stock of goods in the online retailer’s warehouses located in the state. As such, the audit report concluded that the merchants were liable for retailing B&O tax and sales tax on sales to Washington customers made via the online retailer’s website.

The merchants admitted before the Court of Appeals that they sold their goods to consumers and not to the online retailer. However, the merchants challenged the assessment and argued that the online retailer’s provision of fulfillment services necessarily rendered it a “consignee” responsible for remitting retailing B&O tax and sales tax on transactions facilitated through its website in accordance with WAC 458-20-159. The merchants also asserted that the assessment was unfair because they lacked an understanding that they could incur a tax collection liability in Washington through the storage of their merchandise in an in-state warehouse.

The Court of Appeals determined that the merchants failed to show that the online retailer was a consignee with sole responsibility for tax collection. “A consignee,” the Court of Appeals explained, “makes sales on behalf of the consignor.” By contrast, the merchants’ product pages on the marketplace’s website listed the merchants as the sellers, not the online retailer. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded: “[s]ince the merchants sold to buyers, they are liable for retailing B&O tax on those sales.”

The merchants’ failure to list the online retailer as the “seller” on their respective sales pages was also fatal to their argument that they were not liable for retailing sales tax on sales made via the online retailer’s website. The Department of Revenue’s administrative rules explain that while a consignee is responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax on sales made in its own name, when the consignee is selling in the name of the consignor, the consignor may instead report and remit the retail sales tax. Here, the Court of Appeals noted that while the online retailer’s agreement with the merchants provided that it would remit the sales tax if the merchants asked it to do so, neither merchant made such a request.

The Court of Appeals also was unimpressed by the merchants’ assertions that they did not understand that they could establish physical presence nexus and incur a tax liability based on the storage of their goods at a warehouse in the state. The Court of Appeals explained that ignorance of the law, was not an acceptable defense.

CASE TAKEAWAYS

Although Orthotic Shop [...]

Continue Reading

Texas Taxing 130% of Marketplace Sales

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and Eric D. Carstens | Oct 3, 2023 | Audits, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Texas, Transaction Taxes

Proving that everything is bigger in Texas, the state’s Comptroller is now assessing marketplace providers on 130% of their sales. It seems a sales tax on 100% was not big enough for tax officials in the Lone Star State. The additional 30% is a tax on the portion of the product sales price kept by marketplace providers. Talk about double dipping…

Like all states following the Wayfair decision, Texas adopted a marketplace law in 2019 that required marketplace providers to charge tax on 100% of the sales price for products sold over the platform by third-party sellers. Apparently unsatisfied, the Texas Comptroller has decided to assess tax on 130% of marketplace sales, with the additional 30% a double tax on the portion of the sales proceeds paid to the marketplace provider as a commission.

In most marketplaces, the provider charges a commission for allowing a third-party seller to use the platform and its services, like advertising and access to the platform’s user base. As most commissions are typically in the 30% range, Texas is demanding that marketplace providers pay tax on 130% of the sales price and charge the consumer for tax on the 100% and the seller for the 30%.

Without notifying the public, Texas is asserting, on audit, that these commissions are taxable. This position is contrary to a long-standing administrative ruling that was issued in 2012 and quietly revoked by the Texas Comptroller in 2020.

A quick example illustrates how aggressive this position is and the negative impact it will have on marketplace sellers in Texas: Take a book collector in Austin who is selling used books through a marketplace provider and sells a $100 rare Bible to a customer in Dallas. Historically, the marketplace provider would charge an 8% sales tax on the $100 Bible and send that $8 to the Texas Comptroller.[1] The marketplace provider would then take its $30 commission and send the balance of $70 to the local bookseller.

Now, the Texas Comptroller is telling the marketplace provider, on audit, that the $30 commission it received is separately subject to the sales tax. The marketplace provider in the example should have collected an additional $2.40 in sales tax on its receipt of the commission, resulting in an effective sales tax rate on the transaction of 10.4% (again, with no legislative authority or change behind this view). Instead of getting $70 in revenue, the bookseller will only receive the net after sales tax, or $67.60.[2] While this reduction may not seem like much, it will be the difference between being profitable and losing money for some Texas-based sellers. For the Texas Comptroller to make this policy change without legislative blessing—and while the state is enjoying a record budget surplus—should raise alarm bells.

How does the Texas Comptroller get there? First, it deems the commission payment a transaction separate and distinct from the underlying sale of the Bible in the above example. Second, it looks at the services the marketplace provider offered [...]

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Coupon Amounts Are Not Subtracted from Sales Tax Base Unless Sales Receipt Adequately Describes Taxable Item and Coupon

by Stephen P. Kranz and Michael J. Hilkin | Feb 24, 2023 | Audits, Local Tax, Pennsylvania, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Overturning a 6-1 en banc decision by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a coupon does not reduce the price upon which sales tax must be collected unless the coupon is adequately described and “linked” with the taxable item in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (DOR) regulations. The case was brought by a retail customer seeking a sales tax refund on the difference between the retail price of the product and the discounted price as the result of a coupon. The decision instructs retailers on the application of coupon discounts when collecting sales tax. The decision may also provide comfort to retailers facing class action lawsuits in Pennsylvania for collecting sales tax on full invoice prices without taking discounts from coupons into account.

The case examined three transactions between a retailer and customer. In two of the transactions, the customer purchased a single taxable item and used a single coupon. In the other transaction, the customer purchased six taxable items and used five coupons of varying amounts. The receipt provided in each transaction identified each coupon as a “SCANNED COUP” and identified the discount provided with each coupon but did not further describe the coupon nor link the coupon as a discount to any specific item purchased. In all three transactions, the retailer collected sales tax on the full purchase price without taking the coupons into account. The customer sought a sales tax refund from the DOR, maintaining that sales tax should have been collected on the discounted price. The DOR denied the refund claim.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the DOR’s position that under Pennsylvania regulations, “sales tax is owed on the full purchase price” (disregarding any coupons) unless an invoice or receipt (1) separately states and identifies the amount of the taxable item and the coupon and (2) provides a description of both the taxable item and the coupon. Further, the Court agreed that a satisfactory description in the receipt must contain a “linking” element, meaning the coupon must be adequately described to show that it applied to a specific item. The Court explained that such a description on the receipt was necessary because, under Pennsylvania law, “there are discounts or coupons that do not establish a new [taxable] purchase price, such as a discount for shopping on a specific day, discounts from a minimum purchase amount, and sales tax absorption coupons.”

In recent years, state tax departments have been very aggressive in asserting that coupons and discounts do not reduce the sales tax base. This decision serves as a reminder to retailers that the description of coupons on invoices is critical in determining the amount of sales tax to collect. In Pennsylvania, the coupon must be separately identified and “linked” to the taxable product upon which the discount is applied.

This decision highlights the dilemma many retailers face when collecting tax on discounted products: if they collect on the full retail price, they face the potential for customer class action suits [...]

Continue Reading

Is California Picking the Pockets of Other States?

by Charles Moll, III, Elle Kaiser, Michael J. Hilkin and Marcy Jo Mandel | Oct 21, 2022 | California, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

In Matter of Body Wise International LLC (OTA Case No. 19125567; 2022 – OTA – 340P), a California-based retailer collected amounts designated as “tax” related to jurisdictions where it was not registered to collect tax. The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) held that the retailer must remit those amounts to California, even though the sales were not taxable in California, because the retailer did not actually pay the “tax” amounts it collected to the other states nor did it refund those amounts to its customers.

Body Wise International, LLC sold weight loss supplements to customers across the country and shipped the products directly to customers via common carrier from its warehouse in California. During the periods at issue, Body Wise’s tax software program charged a “Tax Amount” on all sales to customers located in various states based upon the respective tax rates in those other states. In states where Body Wise had not registered to charge or collect tax, Body Wise did not remit the “tax” collected to those states.

On audit, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) determined that the “Tax Amounts” Body Wise collected in those other states constituted excess sales tax reimbursements under California Revenue & Taxation Code (R&TC) section 6901.5, which provides that a retailer who collects a sales tax reimbursement exceeding the amount of the sales tax liability imposed upon the sale must remit the excess to the customer or to the state. CDTFA concluded that those amounts collected but not paid over to the other states must either be returned to the customer or remitted to California.

Upon appeal, the OTA agreed with CDTFA. OTA first observed, “it is not necessary for a sale, purchase, or any other type of transfer for consideration to be subject to California’s sales tax in order for the excess tax reimbursement provisions of R&TC section 6901.5 to apply.” Rather, OTA then stated, the requirement to remit or refund excess sales tax reimbursement to CDTFA applied to Body Wise even where the underlying transaction was nontaxable or exempt in California. Based upon this, OTA concluded that Body Wise must remit those amounts collected to California. OTA supported its conclusion by observing that Body Wise was not registered to collect sales tax in some or all of the other states.

However, logically, the excess tax reimbursement covered by the statute must be excess California tax reimbursement in the first instance. Indeed, the statute by its own terms expressly applies to “taxes due under this part [the California Sales and Use Tax Law].” (Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6901.5.) Because these were not taxes due to California but ostensibly to the other states, California’s attempt to abscond with revenues belonging to another state would appear to be unconstitutional as violating the sovereignty of that other state.

The OTA’s conclusion would seem to be at odds with the important maxim of statutory construction to avoid an interpretation of the statute that would render it [...]

Continue Reading

More than Tax Compliance: California Legislation Requires Marketplace Facilitators to Track “High-Volume” Seller Information

by Charles Moll, III, Michael J. Hilkin and Elle Kaiser | Oct 7, 2022 | California, Local Tax, Sales Tax, Transaction Taxes

The responsibilities of marketplace facilitators operating in California are expanding under legislation recently signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Starting on July 1, 2023, an “online marketplace” will be required to collect and maintain specified contact and financial information related to its “high-volume third-party sellers.” The legislation is intended to “provide greater tools for law enforcement to identify stolen items” being resold through online marketplaces.

Under the legislation, a “high-volume third-party seller” is defined as any seller who, in any continuous 12‑month period during the previous 24 months, has entered into 200 or more transactions through an online marketplace for the sale of consumer products to buyers located in California, resulting in a total of $5,000 or more in gross revenues. While the legislation includes its own definition of an “online marketplace,” the definition will likely reach most (if not all) businesses classified as “marketplace facilitators” for California sales tax purposes.

An online marketplace will be required to collect information about any high-volume third-party seller on its platform, including the seller’s name, tax ID number and bank account number (presuming the seller has a bank account), along with certain government-issued records or tax documents if the seller is not an individual. For those sellers making at least 200 sales totaling at least $20,000 in gross revenues to buyers in California, an online marketplace must collect additional information, disclose certain contact information to consumers and provide a means to allow users “to have direct and unhindered communication with the seller.”

Information collected about sellers must be verified within 10 days and be maintained for at least two years, and the online marketplace must suspend sales activities of a high-volume third-party seller out of compliance with the requirements of the legislation. An online marketplace not in compliance with the legislation will be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.

Businesses impacted by this legislative development or with questions about marketplace facilitators are encouraged to contact the authors of this article.

New Mexico Proposes Regulations Addressing Gross Receipts Tax Treatment of Digital Advertising Services

by Eric D. Carstens, Stephen P. Kranz, Michael J. Hilkin, Mark Nebergall and Jonathan C. Hague | Aug 11, 2022 | Allocation/Apportionment, Constitutional Issues, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, New Mexico, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

On August 9, 2022, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department published proposed regulations addressing the gross receipts tax (New Mexico’s version of a sales tax) treatment of digital advertising services. The Department states the proposed regulations do not reflect a change in policy but instead ensure the rules are consistent for all advertising platforms.

While the proposed regulations provide some clarity regarding the taxation of digital advertising services under preexisting rules, they introduce several inconsistencies and other gaps, particularly with respect to the finer details of the sourcing provisions. For example, we believe the proposed regulations leave ambiguity regarding whether gross receipts from the provision of digital advertising services should be sourced to:

The purchaser’s address
The server’s location
The viewer’s location

Separately, the proposed regulations would allow a deduction for gross receipts from national or regional advertising. However, the deduction is not allowed if the purchaser is incorporated in or has its principal place of business in New Mexico. While this significantly narrows the base for the tax, it injects complexity by requiring that the seller know the state in which its purchaser is incorporated or has its principal place of business, information not likely available in the context of internet-based advertising platforms.

Collectively, these inconsistencies and lack of clarity could lead to future compliance issues, which we hope will be mitigated as part of the Department’s regulatory approval process.

The Department scheduled a public hearing on the proposed rules for September 8, 2022, at 10:00 am MDT, which also is the due date for submission of written comments. The proposed regulations would be effective upon publication in the New Mexico Register, which could happen as soon as October 11, 2022 (or thereabout).

Please contact the McDermott Will & Emery State & Local Tax team if you have any questions about the potential impact of these proposed regulations on your company. In the meantime, we will be monitoring the regulation approval process and participating in next month’s public hearing.

US Treasury Issues Guidance on the ARPA Claw-Back Provision

by Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Nebergall and McDermott Will & Emery | May 12, 2021 | Constitutional Issues, Franchise Tax, Income Tax, Insurance Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes

Earlier this week, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued formal guidance regarding the administration of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) claw-back provision. The guidance (Interim Final Rule) provides that the claw-back provision is triggered when there is a reduction in net tax revenue caused by changes in law, regulation or interpretation, and the state cannot identify sufficient funds from sources other than federal relief funds to offset the reduction in net tax revenue. The Interim Final Rule recognizes three sources of funds that may offset a net tax revenue reduction other than federal relief funds—organic growth, increases in revenue (e.g., a tax rate increase) and certain spending cuts (i.e., cuts that are not in an area where the recipient government has spent federal relief funds). According to the Treasury, this framework recognizes that money is fungible and “prevents efforts to use Fiscal Recovery Funds to indirectly offset reductions in net tax revenue.”

The Interim Final Rule also provides guidance on what is considered a change in law, regulation or interpretation that could trigger the claw-back (called covered changes), but that point remains somewhat ambiguous. The Rule provides that:

The offset provision is triggered by a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from ‘a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation.’ A covered change includes any final legislative or regulatory action, a new or changed administrative interpretation, and the phase-in or taking effect of any statute or rule where the phase-in or taking effect was not prescribed prior to the start of the covered period. [The covered period is March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024.] Changed administrative interpretations would not include corrections to replace prior inaccurate interpretations; such corrections would instead be treated as changes implementing legislation enacted or regulations issued prior to the covered period; the operative change in those circumstances is the underlying legislation or regulation that occurred prior to the covered period. Moreover, only the changes within the control of the State or territory are considered covered changes. Covered changes do not include a change in rate that is triggered automatically and based on statutory or regulatory criteria in effect prior to the covered period. For example, a state law that sets its earned income tax credit (EITC) at a fixed percentage of the Federal EITC will see its EITC payments automatically increase—and thus its tax revenue reduced—because of the Federal government’s expansion of the EITC in the ARPA. This would not be considered a covered change. In addition, the offset provision applies only to actions for which the change in policy occurs during the covered period; it excludes regulations or other actions that implement a change or law substantively enacted prior to March 3, 2021. Finally, Treasury has determined and previously announced that income tax changes—even those made during the covered period—that simply conform with recent changes in Federal law (including those to conform to recent changes in Federal taxation of unemployment insurance benefits and taxation of loan [...]

Continue Reading

read more

The US Department of the Treasury Says State IRC Conformity Bills Do Not Trigger Federal Relief Claw-Back Provision

by Stephen P. Kranz and Mark Nebergall | Apr 9, 2021 | Constitutional Issues, Franchise Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Income Tax, Insurance Tax, Local Tax, Nationwide Importance, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Tax Base, Transaction Taxes
As we’ve blogged about in the past, the recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) includes an ambiguous claw-back provision. If broadly interpreted, it could result in states losing relief funding provided under the APRA if there is any state legislative or administrative change that results in the reduction of state revenue. This provision is causing havoc in the state tax world, rightfully so.

After much yelling and screaming from state attorneys general and those in the tax world, including McDermott (see McDermott letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attached), the US Department of the Treasury issued a press release announcing forthcoming “comprehensive guidance” on this provision. Treasury also addressed a question that has been on the top of our minds since the provision was enacted: Could state legislation addressing state conformity to the Internal Revenue Code trigger the claw-back? States routinely conform to and decouple from changes to the Internal Revenue Code, so if such actions could trigger the claw-back, state legislatures would be reluctant to consider them. We were so concerned about this issue that we specifically addressed it in our letter to Secretary Yellen.

This week, we received the Treasury’s guidance on this issue: Conformity bills will not trigger the claw-back. In its press release, Treasury stated:

… Treasury has decided to address a question that has arisen frequently: whether income tax changes that simply conform a State or territory’s tax law with recent changes in federal income tax law are subject to the offset provision of section 602(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Regardless of the particular method of conformity and the effect on net tax revenue, Treasury views such changes as permissible under the offset provision.

This is a step in the right direction and should ease concerns of state legislatures. Passing a conformity bill will not cause any loss of federal funding. Treasury’s guidance, because it applies to all “methods of conformity,” should cover any legislation that either couples with or decouples from the Internal Revenue Code.

But our work is not done. In our letter to Secretary Yellen we also asked for guidance confirming that state actions in other areas will not trigger the claw-back. Specifically, we made concrete suggestions that actions to correcting tax statutes or rules that are either unconstitutional or barred by or violate federal law also should not trigger the claw-back. Treasury’s recent press release gives us a glimmer of hope that Treasury will exclude such actions from the clutches of the claw-back provision as well. Stay tuned for more!

read more

Older Posts »

Search for:

BLOG EDITORS

Stephen P. Kranz

Mary Kay McCalla Martire

Richard C. Call

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS
TOPICS

ARCHIVES
ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS

ITFA Is Alive and Well: New York Advisory Opinion Reaffirms Sales Tax Exemption for Internet Access Services

Texas Comptroller Proposes Rule Changes Cementing Tax on 130% of Marketplace Sales

California Legislatively Overturns Recent Office of Tax Appeals Taxpayer Win

Governor Murphy Saddles Taxpayers With the Nation’s Highest Corporate Tax Rate

Good News for SALT Taxpayers? Supreme Court Overturns Federal Agency Deference