Articles Posted in Technology

Posted

In 1993, the California Legislature amended Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) sections 6011 and 6012 to exclude from California sales and use tax amounts charged for intangible personal property transferred with a technology transfer agreement (TTA) if the TTA separately stated a reasonable price for the tangible personal property (TPP). Nine years later, the State Board of Equalization (SBE) adopted Regulation 1507, Technology Transfer Agreements, to implement and interpret the TTA statutes and to incorporate the California Supreme Court’s holding in Preston v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.4th 197 (2001). Subsequent litigation over the next 13 years in Nortel Networks, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 191 Cal.App.4th 1259 (2011) and Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 241 Cal.App.4th 19 (2015), invalidated portions of Regulation 1507, as well as Regulation 1502 (Computers, Programs and Data Processing). In the nine years since the Lucent decision, the SBE and its successor, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), have been engaged in a seemingly endless regulation project.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

 

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

An administrative law judge with the New York State Division of Tax Appeals held that the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) preempted the imposition of New York franchise tax and a metropolitan transportation business tax (MTA) surcharge on gross receipts from sales of asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) and fiber broadband aggregation and access services (Fiber Broadband).

Continue Reading ›

Posted

 

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/04/Seal_of_New_York.svg_-300x300.png

An administrative law judge in the New York State Division of Tax Appeals rejected the state’s position that a taxpayer providing a web-based service which allowed clients to identify effective and ineffective messaging through information, analysis, and reports was selling taxable software.  Following the rationale applied in a series of recent sales tax cases, including Matter of 1Life Healthcare, Inc., DTA No. 829434, and Matter of Breakdown Services, Ltd., DTA No. 829396, the judge concluded in her September 29, 2022 determination that the taxpayer’s service was nontaxable because its primary function was an information service that was personal or individual in nature.

Continue Reading ›

Posted

On March 29, 2021, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed legislation creating a new sales and use tax exemption and a new franchise and excise tax (F&E) credit for “qualified productions.”  H.B. 141, 112th Gen. Assemb., ch. 70 (Tenn. 2021).  The new legislation is expected to attract greater production activity, especially smaller-scale productions, to the state and put Tennessee on a competitive footing with other states that offer tax incentives to the industry. Continue Reading ›

Posted

On February 15, 2021, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a decision in Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Finance of Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-18-001778 (Md. 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a local ordinance that imposes an annual excise tax on businesses selling advertising space on off-site billboards.  The tax in question applies only to businesses that own or control off-site billboards in the City of Baltimore i.e., billboards that are not located on the premises where the goods or services being advertised are offered for sale.    Continue Reading ›

Posted

On February 12, 2021, Maryland legislators voted to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto of H.B. 732, making Maryland the first state in the nation to impose a digital advertising tax. While Maryland’s enactment of the bill is a first, other states have impending digital advertising tax bills, such as New York, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Washington, Montana and Massachusetts. Maryland’s digital advertising tax, which becomes effective March 14, 2021 (30 days after the Governor’s veto), has been preemptively challenged in U.S. District Court. Continue Reading ›

Posted

https://seesalt.pillsburylaw.com/files/2020/11/Indiana-StateSeal.svg_-300x300.pngA federal district court held that under comity principles, Indiana state court is a more appropriate venue for a putative class action brought by three Indiana municipalities seeking to impose franchise fees on a group of online video providers.  Order, City of Fishers v. Netflix, Inc. No. 1:20-cv-02351-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2020).  The federal district court remanded the case to the Marion Superior Court, where it was originally filed.

Continue Reading ›