On February 14, 2019, the Georgia House Ways and Means Committee voted in favor of House Bill 182. Effective for January 1, 2020, the bill would amend O.C.G.A. § 48-8-2(8)(M.1) to lower the sales threshold on the requirement to collect or report sales and use tax from $250,000 to $100,000 and would repeal subsection (c.2) of O.C.G.A. § 48-8-30 in its entirety to eliminate the option to provide notification to the purchaser and state in lieu of collecting and remitting tax.

O.C.G.A. § 48-8-2 currently requires out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax if the seller obtains gross revenue of more than $250,000 from the retail sales of tangible personal property delivered within Georgia or if the seller conducts 200 or more separate retail sales of tangible personal property delivered within Georgia. Alternatively, O.C.G.A. § 48-8-30 currently gives retailers that reach that threshold the option to instead provide specified information and notification to the purchaser and to the Department of Revenue stating that sales or use tax may be due. House Bill 182 would remove the option for sellers to provide the required notification instead of collecting and remitting tax.

House Bill 182 adopts the same sales threshold used by the South Dakota statute at issue in South Dakota v. Wayfair, 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018). If enacted, the legislation would be effective for sales made on or after January 1, 2020.

A Georgia marketplace bill has also been introduced, House Bill 276, that if enacted would also become effective January 1, 2020.

 

 

Here is associate Chris Lee in his Atlanta “Studio.”

You can listen to the latest episodes of our SALT podcasts by finding the Eversheds Sutherland Legal Insights Podcast Channel wherever you listen to podcasts (iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts) or via the below links.

 

New Jersey apportionment of GILTI

P.L. 86-272 Protection for Deliveries

On January 9, 2019, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the denial of South Dakota’s advertising services use tax exemption to a Sioux Falls-based company (Company) that designs and maintains websites that allow individuals and car dealerships to advertise vehicles for sale. On audit, the Company was assessed use tax for purchases it made for cloud services, anti-virus software, contract labor, and similar tangible personal property and services, as well as purchases of Internet domain names. The Company argued that the assessed purchases were exempt as advertising services and, if not otherwise exempt thereunder, the domain name purchases were exempt sales for resale.

In construing the advertising exemption in regard to the state’s use tax, the court found that the exemption “requires the advertising agency to both prepare the advertisement and place it in the advertising media.” Here, the exemption did not apply because (i) none of the assessed transactions, other than the domain name purchases, were used by the Company to complete advertising services for a customer; and (ii) the car dealers, and not the Company, prepared the advertisements displayed on the Company’s website themselves after the Company provided login credentials to the dealers. Therefore the court found that the assessed services did not qualify for South Dakota’s advertising services exemption. And because the Company retained ownership of the domain names and did not otherwise sell them to customers in the form purchased, the purchases of Internet domain names did not qualify as sales for resale. Carsforsale.com, Inc. v. South Dakota Dep’t of Rev., 2019 S.D. 4 (S.D. 2019)

The New Jersey Tax Court ruled that a corporation was entitled to apportion its corporate income based on a “regular place of business” outside of New Jersey. This now-repealed apportionment requirement was the source of several New Jersey Tax Court cases. For tax years beginning before July 1, 2010, N.J. Rev. Stat. § 54:10A-6 provided that corporations must maintain a regular place of business outside of New Jersey as a prerequisite to apportion its income. The court rejected the New Jersey Division of Taxation’s interpretation of its regulation, N.J.A.C. 18:7-7.2. Notably, the court disagreed with the Division’s contention that all of the regulation’s factors for finding a regular place of business must be met. And, the court also rejected the Division’s position that an employee’s employer is determined based on which entity is paying the employee, rather than which entity directs and controls the employee. (ADP Vehicle Registration, Inc. v. Division of Taxation, Dkt No. 014946-2014 (N.J. Tax Ct. Dec. 11, 2018)).

The New Jersey Tax Court rejected a taxpayer’s due process claim finding that the Division of Taxation properly issued the notice of assessment. The taxpayer made three arguments: (1) that the Division issued the assessment in the name of the predecessor corporation instead of the successor corporation, (2) that the assessment was addressed to the wrong zip code, and (3) that the taxpayer’s third-party mailroom routed the assessment to the wrong location. In addressing each of these claims, the court reasoned that the taxpayer’s officer executed prior statute waivers in the name of the predecessor corporation and that the assessment was delivered to the proper address where agents of the taxpayer accepted and signed the mail return receipt card. Although there was evidence that the taxpayer’s mailroom routed the assessment to a different location, the court found that the taxpayer’s neglect was not excusable and that it was responsible for its organization’s failure to take prompt action to respond to the assessment. (Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation v. Division of Taxation, Dkt. No: 004230-2017 (NJ Tax Ct. Sep. 28, 2018) WL 4718875).

The Maryland House of Delegates is considering legislation (House Bill 426) that would impose sales and use tax on digital products and sales tax on digital codes. If signed into law, Maryland would begin taxing digital products and digital codes on July 1, 2019. House Bill 426 was read for the first time in the Ways and Means Committee on January 31, 2019.

Read the full legal alert here.

A New York State Administrative Law Judge ruled that the retroactive application of amendments to the state’s Empire Zones statute—disqualifying a taxpayer from the tax reduction credits—did not violate the taxpayer’s constitutional due process rights. Acknowledging that the stated public purposes of curtailing perceived abuses and raising revenue were better accomplished in prospective legislation, the Division nevertheless found that the application of statutory amendments to the tax year in which the amendments were enacted was an “extremely short period of retroactivity” that outweighs the lack of a public purpose. (In the Matter of the Petition of NRG Energy, Inc., Dkt. No. 826921 (N.Y. Div. Tax App. 11/08/2018)).

The Washington Department of Revenue Appeals Division ruled that for B&O apportionment purposes under the “services and other activities” tax classification, an out-of-state automated teller machine (ATM) card transaction processor’s receipts are properly sourced to the location of its financial institution customers’ ATM transaction activities. The Appeals Division found that location to be the location of an ATM machine where an individual cardholder “swiped” his/her ATM card and the ATM transaction was completed, and not the customer’s billing address. The Appeals Division concluded that the Department of Revenue’s method of attributing the benefit of the taxpayer’s service to the location of the taxpayer’s customers’ activities did not violate the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the US Constitution and was a reasonable method under Washington law. Finally, the Appeals Division ruled that the card service fees were not royalties because they were not related to an intangible right such as a license, a trademark or a similar item, but rather were charged for access to a payment system that was vital to the business activities of the taxpayer’s customers. (Det. No. 16-0026, 37 WTD 201 (2018)).

The New Jersey Tax Court rejected the Division of Taxation’s application of a five-factor alternative apportionment formula as invalid rulemaking under New Jersey’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Tax Court previously determined that an application of the statutory apportionment formula in effect prior to 2011 for companies without a “regular place of business” outside New Jersey did not fairly reflect the taxpayer’s in-state business activities and remanded the case to the Division so that other apportionment methods could be considered. The Division then proposed a modified five-factor formula. The Tax Court found that while the five-factor formula could be an acceptable exercise of the Division’s discretionary authority to adjust the taxpayer’s apportionment formula, it nevertheless constituted an impermissible “de facto rule-making” in violation of the APA.


Canon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, No. 000404-2014 (N.J. Tax Ct. Dec. 5, 2018).