There were two competing bills regarding tax sharing agreements (TSAs) this legislative session: SB 531 and SB 485. The former would have barred all TSAs at the local level as of January 1, 2020. The latter would not bar TSAs but instead would require the locality to report certain information pertaining to the agreement that would be made publicly available. On October 12, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill that would have barred TSAs altogether and instead signed the other bill that requires publicly reporting certain information pertaining to the TSAs.
Pillsbury is proud to partner with TEI’s NY Chapter to host their State & Local Chapter Meeting. Join Pillsbury SALT and TEI NY Chapter members for “Sales Tax: Transformation in Action.”
In a presentation designed for sales tax compliance professionals at all levels, Sheila Rao, Senior Vice President, TEI NY Chapter, will present a step-by-step study of her company’s sales tax software implementation.
(This article originally was published by Law360 on May 17, 2019.)
In the last year, several state legislatures have enacted laws and several state courts have published decisions on whether software as a service, or SaaS, is subject to sales and use tax. These developments impact many SaaS providers, especially due to the expanded nexus provisions that many states are enacting after the United States Supreme Court’s South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. decision.1 The states have gone in different directions—Indiana enacted legislation exempting SaaS, while Iowa and Rhode Island began taxing SaaS. The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board and the Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue have both issued decisions clarifying the taxability of SaaS offerings.
Pillsbury attorneys speak on a number of tax-related issues at the TEI Mergers & Acquisitions Seminar on March 7. Topics include Corporate, Sales/Use Tax, State Income Tax, Federal Income Tax, Property/Transfer Taxes, Regulatory, and Employment and Labor.
On April 13, Pillsbury senior counsel Richard Nielsen presents “Sales Taxation of Digital Commerce in the United States” during the the “Digital Economy in the Crosshairs” panel session at the American Bar Association’s 18th Annual Tax Planning Strategies U.S. and Europe Conference.
(This article originally was published by Law360 on October 10, 2017.)
States historically have had one major impediment to their ability to collect sales tax—the decision in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota to uphold a physical presence test standard for determining nexus. Since the Quill decision, states have applied various approaches to limit or even eliminate Quill’s physical presence nexus standard. These approaches included lobbying Congress to provide federal legislation that would redefine nexus, enacting state “click-through” nexus statutes, and taking aggressive audit positions that limit the applicability of physical presence nexus.
As consumer products become more high tech, the line between computers and traditional devices has blurred. Even basic products, such as toothbrushes, alarm clocks, doorbells, smartphones, cameras, home security systems, printers and copiers now include technical software that enables new functionality options for the device. As a general principle, tangible personal property, but not intangibles or services, is subject to California Sales and Use Tax. Software “embedded” into a product has value distinct from the value of the rest of the device and that distinct (intangible) value is not subject to sales tax. On the heels of two recent taxpayer victories in the California Court of Appeal relating to taxation of software, this article discusses current developments on how to treat such embedded software for California sales (and use) tax purposes.
(The remainder of this article can be accessed in the January 2017 edition of the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives.)
On July 1, 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl.1 The Court of Appeals held that federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) to address Direct Marketing Association’s (DMA) challenge to Colorado’s use tax notice and reporting provisions.