The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Department of Treasury was permitted to engage in an indirect audit of a taxpayer because of its insufficient recordkeeping. The taxpayer operated oil change and automotive maintenance facilities in Michigan.  It claimed sales tax exemptions for labor charges associated with its services. On audit, the Department disallowed exemptions on the basis that the retailer had not itemized its non-taxable labor charges on its invoices. Michigan provides for a sales tax exemption for “labor or service charges involved in maintenance and repair work on tangible personal property of others if separately itemized.” MCL 205.51(1)(d)(iii)(B) (emphasis added). See also Mich. Admin. Code r. 205.117(3).

The court held that, during the audit, the invoices available to the Department of the Treasury did not clearly itemize the cost of the tangible personal property. Rather, each contained a line called the “Taxable Amount,” but did not identify whether this was intended to itemize tangible personal property in accordance with Michigan law. While the taxpayer submitted invoices after the audit was complete with separate lines for “Taxable Parts” and “Non-Taxable Labor,” the court concluded that the Department was not obligated to review these post-audit invoices. 

Further, the court also concluded that it was appropriate for the Department to assess the taxpayer on the basis of an indirect audit. Per MCL 205.68(4), the Department may do so if there exists “a belief by the Department that records or returns are inaccurate or incomplete and that additional taxes are due.” The court found the indirect audit to be appropriate because the first round of duplicate invoices submitted to the Department during the audit period “revealed problems with accuracy and completeness” and that “the record is replete with evidence of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Sav-Time’s financial documents.” 

Sav-Time, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 370459 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2026).

We are excited to have Greg Matson join our SALT Team. And we were pleasantly surprised to learn of Greg’s most interesting pet. Meet Slick, a one-eyed, red-lored amazon parrot.

Slick has been with Greg since 1991, when Greg bought him on a street corner in Panama while serving in the US Army (Greg, that is). Getting Slick home was no small feat. Slick clawed his way to the US by enduring a 30-day quarantine in Miami, emerging with a hard-won monocular look after losing his right eye to an infection. Greg briefly considered training him to wear an eyepatch, but thought better of it. Good thing, as the pirate jokes have been flying around the office at a good clip even without the patch. 

Now 35 years old (you read that right), Slick shows no signs of slowing down. Amazon parrots can live around 80 years, so Slick has a good chance of “seeing” the next US Supreme Court decision governing state taxation.

Slick is also famously vocal. He can mimic a smoke alarm, greets every phone call with a cheerful “Hello” (or “Hola,” depending on his mood), and bids every departing guest farewell with “Goodbye, Slick.” Fortunately, Greg has not (yet) shared any of his SALT expressions with Slick. Given Greg’s two decades at the Multistate Tax Commission, we are sure that Slick has had enough of a connection to learn a fairly-apportioned amount of SALT lingo. 

We encourage you to give Greg a call – to either discuss how he can help you resolve a SALT controversy, or to learn more about Slick and his diet (hint: it involves foods you find at a baseball game). We are delighted to welcome both Slick and Greg to the SALT family!

The Florida Second Judicial Circuit granted summary judgment in favor of Checkfree Services Corporation, finding that Florida’s corporate income tax cost of performance apportionment rule required the sourcing of receipts from Checkfree’s online bill pay services based on Checkfree’s own transactions and activities.

Checkfree acted as an agent for financial institution clients and facilitated online bill pay transactions requested by its clients’ customers, some of whom were located in Florida. Checkfree conducted the vast majority of its business activities outside of Florida, as evidenced by the fact that Checkfree had no payroll and virtually no property in Florida. Nevertheless, the Department argued that Checkfree’s receipts must be sourced to Florida on the basis that its income producing activities took place at the location of its customers, or alternatively, on the basis of a special apportionment rule applicable to providing direct access to a database.

The Court rejected the Department’s argument as inconsistent with Florida’s COP rule, which required sourcing based on the transactions and activities of the taxpayer, not its customer. The Court determined that Checkfree was paid for moving money on behalf of its customers, rejecting the Department’s alternative argument that the special sourcing rule for receipts from providing direct access to a database applied.

Checkfree Services Corporation v. State of Florida Department of Revenue, No. 2024 CA 1026 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Ct. Leon Cnty. Mar. 6, 2026).

Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!

We will award a prize for the smartest (and fastest) participant.

This week’s question: Which Midwest state’s legislature recently advanced a bill prohibiting local governments from imposing a tax on businesses calculated based on the number of employees (i.e., a head tax)?

E-mail your response to SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $25 UBER Eats gift card. This week’s answer will be included in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest, distributed on Saturday. Be sure to check back then!

The Texas Court of Appeals considered whether a chemical manufacturer’s purchases of returnable containers were exempt from sales and use tax under Texas’s manufacturing exemption. The taxpayer manufactured chemicals for use in water treatment applications and for customers in the oil and gas industries. It placed its products into returnable porta-feed containers that preserved chemical composition, prevented reactions during transport, and met applicable governmental regulations and standards.

The taxpayer argued that the containers were exempt from sales and use tax under the state’s manufacturing exemption, specifically as property used or consumed during actual manufacturing that was necessary and essential to pollution control, quality control, and public health laws. The state argued that the specific container exemption controlled over the manufacturing exemption, and that under that provision, the containers were taxable as equipment used in transportation or storage, not manufacturing.

The Court rejected the state’s argument, finding that the container exemption and the manufacturing exemption could be reconciled and both be given effect. Additionally, the Court found that the state waived its challenge to the application of the manufacturing exemption by failing to address those arguments in its opening brief.

The Court also rejected the state’s argument that the containers lost exempt status when emptied, holding that the containers qualified for the exemption so long as they were sold, leased, or rented to a manufacturer at the time services were performed.

Hancock v. ChampionX, No. 15-24-00111-CV, 2026 WL 692439 (Tex. App. Mar. 12, 2026).

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Partners Jeremy Gove and Chelsea Marmor sit down with Counsel Charles Capouet to discuss his recent article in Tax Notes State on the use of declaratory judgments to challenge unconstitutional state taxes.

Charles explains how declaratory judgments can serve as a “third way” to contest a tax, allowing taxpayers to seek an early, definitive ruling on a tax’s legality, often before experiencing significant financial impact. Interest in these actions is growing as states continue to adopt novel taxes that raise unresolved constitutional questions, and the conversation explores how this approach can benefit both taxpayers and states by providing greater certainty and helping avoid budget disruptions tied to later refunds. The group also discusses the limitations of declaratory judgment actions, which are typically confined to facial constitutional challenges and permitted only in certain states.

The episode concludes with a timely “overrated/underrated” segment where the group discusses Opening Day of baseball.

For questions or comments, email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com. Subscribe to receive regular updates hosted on the SALT Shaker blog.

Listen now:

Subscribe for more:

When states push the limits of tax policy, litigation often follows.

In an article for Bloomberg Tax, Partner Jeff Friedman, along with University of Connecticut School of Law Professor Richard Pomp, examines two Utah proposals – a targeted advertising tax and a tax on online providers of material that is “harmful to minors” – and explains why these measures may invite constitutional challenges rather than meaningful revenue.

Read the full article here.

Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!

We will award a prize for the smartest (and fastest) participant.

This week’s question: Californians are currently considering a ballot initiative that would ban which two types of taxes?

E-mail your response to SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

The prize for the first response to today’s question is a $25 UBER Eats gift card. This week’s answer will be included in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest, distributed on Saturday. Be sure to check back then!

The Texas Supreme Court rejected a taxpayer’s refund claim asserting that its sales of bunker fuel (fuel for large, ocean-going vessels) delivered to foreign-registered ships at Texas ports were not delivered or shipped to a buyer for ultimate use or consumption in Texas. The taxpayer argued that the comptroller’s administrative rules making the transfer point determinative were invalid because the phrase “buyer in this state” in Texas Tax Code § 171.103(a)(1) referred to the ultimate destination of the goods and not the place of transfer. Noting that the statutory text refers to delivery or shipment to a buyer “in this state” and contains no reference to use, consumption, or market location, the Court held that the statute unambiguously adopts a “place-of-delivery” or “place-of-transfer” rule, sinking the taxpayer’s claim.

NuStar Energy, L.P. v. Hancock, No. 24-0037 (Tex. Mar. 13, 2026).

Members of our SALT team will be sharing timely, practical insights at three upcoming programs focused on key developments impacting businesses navigating today’s complex tax landscape.

On Monday, March 23, SALT Partners Michele Borens, Jeff Friedman, and Tim Gustafson are pleased to join the TEI Virginia Chapter’s March meeting, where they will provide updates on important state and local tax developments affecting businesses nationwide.

Speakers and topics include:

  • Michele Borens and Jeff Friedman – SALT Litigation Update
  • Tim Gustafson – California / New York Review

In addition, join Partner Todd Betor on Wednesday, March 25 at 11:00 a.m. EDT for a practical webinar exploring how businesses can effectively use tax risk insurance amid increasing tax complexity and uncertainty.

Todd will be joined by additional members of our global tax team and will help discuss:

  • What tax risk insurance is (and isn’t)
  • How businesses can maximize its value
  • Key use cases and emerging trends
  • When tax risk insurance should be considered

Learn more and register here.

Finally, on March 26, Partner Jeff Friedman will present Constitutional Limitations on State Taxation as part of TEI’s virtual State and Local Tax (SALT) Essentials Course.

Learn more about the course, and how to register, here.