Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
The California Supreme Court held that taxpayers may file a class action claim against a municipal government entity for the refund of the telephone users tax (TUT). Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S174507 (Cal. July 25, 2011).
The City of Los Angeles imposes the TUT on customers who use telephone communications…
The Virginia Supreme Court recently issued an interesting decision related to the minimum tax on telecommunications companies. The court held that the State Corporation Commission (“SCC”) did not have authority to exclude the taxpayer’s Internet-related revenues from the gross receipts it certifies to the Department of Taxation (“Department”). Level 3 Comm’ns, LLC v. State Corp. Comm’n, 710 S.E.2d 474 (Va. June 9, 2011).
Level 3, a telecommunications company, provides wholesale Internet services to Internet service providers. It maintains an extensive network in Virginia and is thus subject to Virginia’s minimum tax on telecommunications companies (telecommunications companies are subject to either a corporate income tax or a minimum tax on gross receipts). The minimum tax computation is a two-step process:
Continue Reading Virginia Supreme Court Includes Internet-Related Revenue in Tax Base (Sort of)
In what is surely a sign of more good things to come, Colorado repealed its short-lived sales tax on “standardized” (canned) software other than canned software delivered by tangible storage medium. The legislation, House Bill 1293, statutorily reinstates Special Regulation 7 by exempting software delivered or accessed by application service providers (ASP), electronic delivery…
With all the drama and suspense of a Hollywood movie, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB X1 28 on June 29—more than two weeks after the bill originally passed the California legislature. AB X1 28 has been controversial because it significantly expands California’s sales and use tax collection requirements by substantially incorporating all of the provisions of former AB 153 (click-through nexus), AB 155 (affiliate nexus), and SB 234 (constitutional nexus). Together, these changes combine California’s recent efforts to force remote sellers to collect California sales tax. To further complicate matters, AB X1 28 provides that these changes become effective immediately.
AB X1 28 amends California’s definition of “retailer engaged in business” for sales and use tax collection purposes, as set forth in Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 6203, to include three new groups of “retailers” as follows.Continue Reading Nexus Explosion: California Governor Signs Bill Expanding California Sales Tax Collection Requirements
On April 27, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied the State Board of Equalization’s (SBE) petition for review of Nortel Networks v. State Board of Equalization, 191 Cal.App.4th 1259 (2d. Dist. 2011), paving the way for refund claims based on the Court of Appeal’s decision (for a full discussion of Nortel, click here…
In addition to A Pinch of SALT (our monthly State Tax Notes column on hot issues in state and local tax), Sutherland SALT regularly publishes UPwords, which covers the latest developments in unclaimed property. In this edition of UPwords, we focus on a new form of digital property—the online prepaid discount voucher, such as those…
Digitally provided content and services raise numerous questions when it comes to reporting, collecting and enforcing taxes because tax laws have yet to catch up with the digital world. In this month’s A Pinch of SALT (a column published by the Sutherland SALT Team in State Tax Notes), attorneys Steve Kranz, Beth Freeman and Mark Yopp highlight some…
The Washington Supreme Court recently adopted the “primary purpose of the purchaser” test to determine whether a transaction should be broken down into its component parts or considered as a whole. In Qualcomm, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, the court overturned the state court of appeals and held that a taxpayer’s vehicle tracking service was subject to buiness and occupation (B&O) tax as an information service, and not as a network telephone service. The court reasoned that the purchaser was buying an integrated management tool that happened to include data transmission, not a telephone service coupled with tracking hardware and software.Continue Reading Keep on Truckin’: Washington Supreme Court Analyzes the Primary Purpose of Vehicle Tracking Service
The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) took a “members only” approach to determine how revenue derived from website access fees should be sourced to Texas for Texas Franchise Tax apportionment purposes. In Letter No. 201102989L (Feb. 2, 2011), the Comptroller considered the sourcing of revenues derived from a company’s social networking website. The social networking website allowed registered users to pay a flat fee to access the website’s database, publish information, communicate with other users, and utilize and interact with the website’s programs. The Comptroller concluded that such fees were akin to membership fees because customers were charged a flat rate for certain benefits and thus should be sourced to the location of the payor.Continue Reading Texas “Tweets” Guidance on Sourcing Social Networking Website Revenue
The California Court of Appeal held that receipts from Nortel’s license of computer programs used to operate a telephone company’s switch hardware were not subject to sales tax. Nortel Networks, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, Case No. B213415 (2d App. Dist. Jan. 18, 2011). The court also partially invalidated Regulation 1507 on the grounds that the State Board of Equalization (SBE) had exceeded its authority when it enacted the regulation.
The Court of Appeal’s decision provides guidance regarding the scope of exempt Technology Transfer Agreements (TTA), which are defined as “any agreement under which a person who holds a patent or copyright interest assigns or licenses to another person the right to make and sell a product or to use a process that is subject to the patent or copyright.” Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6011(c)(10)(D); 6012(c)(10)(D).Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Switcheroo: Software Constitutes Technology Transfer Agreement
