Articles Posted in Sales and Use Tax

Posted

SealofTennessee-Seal-300x300The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that a single member limited liability company (SMLLC) that is disregarded for federal income tax purposes is regarded for Tennessee excise tax purposes unless its single member is classified as a corporation for federal income tax purposes.  The court also held that proceeds from the settlement of a legal malpractice claim constitute “business earnings” subject to excise tax where the proceeds represent lost business revenue.  EmeraChem Power, LLC v. Gerregano, No. E2019-00292-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 1, 2020). Continue Reading ›

Posted

sealofmissouristateseal1-300x300On March 17, 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the use tax definition of “sale” cannot be applied to sales tax cases, turning more than two decades of precedent on its head.  In DI Supply I, LLC v. Director of Revenue, DI Supply sold hotel room furnishings to its parent, Drury Hotels Company (DHC), which operates hotels.  The issue before the court was whether DI Supply’s sales to DHC were nontaxable sales for resale.  DI Supply argued the sales were for resale because DHC transferred the right to use the hotel room furnishings to its guests and included the cost of such items in the nightly room rate. Continue Reading ›

Posted

In a letter ruling published March 16, 2020, the Tennessee Department of Revenue concluded that a contractor’s purchase of materials and equipment for use in the construction and installation of a new steam production facility at a federally owned manufacturing plant was exempt from Tennessee sales and use tax.  Tenn. Letter Rul. No. 20-02 (issued Feb. 10, 2020).

Continue Reading ›

Posted

arizona-state-seal-color-e1582833598849There have been two interesting developments in Arizona as a result of Wayfair. First, the Arizona House of Representatives pushed forward a resolution, H.C.M. 2006, last week to formally ask Congress to enact uniform national legislation to simplify sales tax or similar tax collection by all states and to reduce the burden of tax compliance on remote sellers. In addition, the Arizona Senate pushed forward S.C.M. 1003, requesting Congress to do the same, on February 13. Each bill needs to be sent to the other chamber for final passage. If either bill is passed, the measure would be transmitted to the federal government. Arizona would be the first state requesting federal intervention to ensure sales tax compliance simplicity in all states by passing state legislation.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

iStock-182174100-massachusetts-300x227The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that sales tax applied to subscription fees for three online Citrix products, “GoToMyPC,” “GoToAssist” and “GoToMeeting,” which allow users to remotely access other users’ computers. Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, No. SJC-12741 (Mass. Feb. 5, 2020). In so holding, the Court affirmed the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board’s determination that Citrix made taxable sales of tangible personal property, rather than nontaxable sales of services.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

Louisiana-Supreme-Court-Seal-300x300On January 29, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision in Normand v. Wal-Mart.com USA, reversing in full two lower courts and holding Walmart.com was not required to collect local sales tax on third-party sales facilitated through its online marketplace. The majority concluded Walmart.com was not a “dealer” under Louisiana law for purposes of such sales and the company’s contracts with third-party marketplace retailers did not transfer the third-party retailers’ sales tax obligation to Walmart.com.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

Washington-Court-of-AppealsThe Washington Court of Appeals held that Gartner, Inc.’s online research service was a digital automated service subject to the state’s retail sales tax and retailing Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax. Gartner, Inc. v. Washington Department of Revenue, No. 51637-3-II (Wash. App. Div. 2 Jan. 13, 2020). This decision addressed the scope of Washington’s “human effort” exclusion from the retail sales tax, the applicability of the “bundled transaction” and “true object” tests to offerings that contain taxable and nontaxable components, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

The Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR) has just released a series of eight draft administrative rules for Oregon’s new Corporate Activity Tax (CAT) that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In “The CAT is Almost Out of the Bag! Oregon Releases First Set of Draft CAT Rules,” SALT team members Carley RobertsRobert P. Merten III and Afshin Michael Khazaeli examine the rules themselves, what this may mean for companies calculating commercial activity, and more.

Posted

TEI-Silicon-ValleyPillsbury SALT was proud to present TEI/IPT Silicon Valley’s State and Local Tax Day & IPT Joint Meeting on December 5! The team presented a 3/4-day seminar that focused on topics related to the State and Local Tax implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wayfair, and other hot topics in state and local taxation.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

MTCLogo-300x151-300x151The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) is updating its Public Law 86-272 guidance, “Statement of Information Concerning Practices of Multistate Tax Commission and Signatory States under Public Law 86-272,” to address internet activities. This guidance was last updated in 2001. The latest draft guidance, dated October 15, 2019, provides examples of when the use of an “interactive” website will defeat P.L. 86-272 immunity, even if the company has no other contact with the customer’s state. Such examples include:

  • providing post-sale assistance to customers via either electronic chat or email accessed through a website link;
  • soliciting and receiving online applications for branded credit cards;
  • inviting viewers to apply for employment;
  • contracting with a marketplace facilitator, whose marketplace offers for sale the company’s products via a website and maintains the company’s inventory;
  • inserting internet “cookies” into the computers or other electronic devices of customers; or
  • remotely fixing products via the internet and WiFi.

Having one of the listed internet activities—by itself—would cause a company that has limited its in-state activities to solicitation of sales to lose its P.L. 86-272 immunity according to the draft guidance. In effect, the MTC’s draft guidance would eviscerate P.L. 86-272 protection given today’s digital economy.

The October 15, 2019, draft “Statement of Information Concerning Practices of Multistate Tax Commission and Signatory States under Public Law 86-272” can be accessed here. More information can be found on the MTC’s web page.

Contact Information