Digital Economy

Subscribe to Digital Economy via RSS

A recently released California Chief Counsel Ruling authorized a corporate taxpayer to use its customers’ billing addresses as a proxy for the customers’ “commercial domicile” in calculating the taxpayer’s sales factor numerator. Chief Counsel Ruling 2011-01 (Aug. 23, 2011, rel. Dec. 28, 2011).

For sales factor purposes, California sources the sales of intangibles and services using costs of performance (COP) apportionment. The sales of intangibles and services are attributable to California if a greater proportion of the income-producing activity is performed in California than in any other state, based on COP. Before 2008, taxpayers could not include payments to agents and independent contractors as part of the taxpayer’s COP analysis. But beginning in 2008, California began to require taxpayers to take into account payments made to agents and independent contractors in calculating COP. As part of the analysis, the taxpayer must determine the location of the income-producing activity, and the regulations provide a comprehensive list of cascading rules to determine the appropriate location of the income-producing activity. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18, § 25136.Continue Reading We Know Where You Live: California’s Billing Address Sourcing

Recently, there has been significant activity in Congress related to sales tax nexus.

  • In July, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced the Main Street Fairness Act (the “Durbin Bill”), the first of three bills introduced this year that would allow states to collect sales taxes from remote sellers.
  • On October 13, 2011, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Cal.) introduced the Marketplace Equity Act of 2011 (the “Womack Bill”) that would allow states to impose a sales or use tax collection requirement on remote sellers with no physical presence in a state.
  • Yet another bill, the Marketplace Fairness Act, was introduced by Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) on November 9 (the “Enzi Bill”). This bill appears to have bipartisan support, as senators on both sides of the aisle are co-sponsors: Sens. Durbin, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Roy Blunt (R-Miss.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).
  • In contrast to these bills, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) introduced a resolution opposing the enactment of “new burdensome or unfair” tax collection requirements on small Internet sellers. Sen. Res. 309 (Introduced Nov. 2, 2011).

Despite the resolution, Congress will seriously consider the three proposed acts. The three acts attempt to address the same issue through slightly different approaches. All three would allow states to collect tax from remote sellers if certain uniformity requirements are met. The uniformity requirements are similar, for the most part, but with some slight differences as discussed below.Continue Reading Nexus? Who Said Anything about Nexus?: A Summary of the Federal Nexus Bills

Businesses that sell video games and related content online and by remote access have been pondering an essential sales and use taxability question: What is the proper characterization of the goods and services being sold? Although downloaded video games have long been thought to be a form of prewritten computer software, businesses that sell related subscription services, virtual goods, and virtual currencies have enjoyed much less tax certainty.

Two states have weighed in on this issue in recent months. Kansas and Missouri issued letter rulings addressing the tax issues that arise in the gaming environment. Although the states’ guidance is not entirely consistent, gaming companies may welcome any move toward improved tax clarity in the virtual gaming business.Continue Reading Virtual Chaos: Two States Log In to the Online Gaming Arena

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:

  1. The Virginia SCC is required to certify telecommunications companies’ gross receipts to the Department, 
  2. The Department calculates the minimum tax.

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