In this article for Bloomberg Tax, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeffrey Friedman, Stephanie Do and Michael Hilkin discuss the topics covered at the April 25 Multistate Tax Commission Uniformity Committee meeting in Denver, including revisions to the model combined reporting statute, potential revisions to the MTC’s Public Law 86-272 guidance applicable to businesses engaging in activities
In the News
Ohio is Seeing Green: CAT Imposed on Out-of-State Seller’s Sales That Were Completed Out of State
The Court of Appeals of Ohio held that a Georgia-based wholesaler of lawn and garden products established nexus and its sales were properly included in the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) base.
The taxpayer was a wholesaler of garden equipment that did not have property, employees or other presence in Ohio. The Taxpayer’s primary customers were…
Proposed Legislation in North Carolina May Mitigate Tax on State Incentives
The North Carolina legislature has introduced S.B. 622, which would make significant changes to a wide range of North Carolina taxes.
Among those changes, the legislation would allow a deduction, to the extent included in federal taxable income, for amounts received from specified economic incentive programs in North Carolina—the Job Maintenance and Capital Development…
Pass This On: Washington Court of Appeals Holds Prescription Drug Payments Subject to B&O Tax
On March 26, 2019, the Washington Court of Appeals held that a pharmacy benefit management company’s payments from clients (e.g., health maintenance organizations, health insurers, etc.) for the value of prescription drugs, were subject to the Washington B&O tax. The taxpayer manages the clients’ prescription drug benefit programs and performs activities, including contracting with third-party…
Glass Half-Full: Tennessee Court of Appeals Applies “Dominant Business Activity” Test, Rules for Taxpayer in Business Tax Dispute
The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that a business that sold and installed automotive glass and also made repairs to automotive glass was properly classified as a seller of tangible personal property (glass), and not as a seller of services, for purposes of the Tennessee business tax. The Tennessee Department of Revenue audited the taxpayer’s…
New York Disregards Taxpayer’s Reliance on Disregarded Entity Rules
The New York Division of Tax Appeals denied a refund claim to a taxpayer that sought to apply the income sourcing rules for registered broker-dealers to receipts from its separate investment advisory business. The taxpayer structured its broker-dealer operations and investment advisory operations into two separate single-member limited liability companies (LLCs). The taxpayer claimed that…
Incidentally, Damage Waivers Are Subject to South Carolina Sales Tax
The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the imposition of sales tax on sales of optional “waivers,” which were sold to renters and relieved them from liability of damaged or stolen rental property. Rent-A-Center East, Inc. and Rent Way, Inc. (collectively, the “Taxpayers”) operated retail stores in South Carolina from which customers could rent-to-own durable…
Indiana Supreme Court Holds Driver Was an Independent Contractor, Not Employee
The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that a company properly classified a driver as an independent contractor, not an employee, for unemployment insurance tax purposes. The company connected drivers with vehicle manufacturers that needed large vehicles driven to their customers or dealerships. When a former driver filed a claim for state UI benefits, the Indiana…
I’ve Been Wrong Before: The New York Department of Taxation and Finance Imposes Sales Tax on a Marketplace Operator
On March 8, 2019, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance released an Advisory Opinion ruling that an online marketplace operator that facilitates taxable software sales is a “vendor” liable to collect sales tax. The Department relied on a rarely-used portion of the definition of “vendor,” which states that “when in the opinion of…
Texas Court of Appeals holds Hotel Consumables not Purchased for Resale
The Texas Court of Appeals held that a hotel owner was not entitled to a resale exemption for the hotel consumables it offered to its guests during their stay. Alamo National Building Management (“Alamo”) purchased items such as soap, lotion, cups and coffee, among other things, using a resale certificate. The items were not separately…



