By Samantha Trencs and Eric Tresh

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the mandatory apportionment provision of the Michigan Single Business Tax Act did not impliedly repeal Michigan’s enactment of the Multistate Tax Compact’s alternative apportionment election provision. In addition, the court held that the Single Business Tax (SBT) was an income tax under the Compact’s definition, and the state’s retroactive repeal of the Compact by PA 282 (2014) did not extend to the SBT for tax years prior to 2008. Thus, taxpayers are allowed to make the Compact’s apportionment election for periods prior to the enactment of the Michigan Business Tax. AK Steel Holding Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Nos. 327175, 2016 WL 744071 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016).

By Evan Hamme and Charlie Kearns

Purchases of “data center equipment for assembly, use, or consumption in the operations of a qualified data center” on or after January 1, 2016, are exempt from Michigan sales and use tax.  M.C.L. §§ 205.54ee, 205.94cc; see generally Notice Regarding Data Center Exemption, Feb. 5, 2016. The data center exemption will sunset on January 1, 2036 or, as discussed below, two earlier dates if certain job creation benchmarks are not met.

For purposes of Michigan’s new data center exemption, a “qualified data center” is “a facility composed of 1 or more buildings located in [Michigan that is] owned or operated by an entity engaged at that facility in operating, managing, or maintaining a group of networked computers or networked facilities for the purpose of centralizing . . . the storage, processing, management, or dissemination of [one or more persons’] data.” To qualify for the exemption, a qualified data center must also generate 75% or more of its revenue from one or more “colocated businesses” that are not “affiliates” of the qualified data center. A “colocated business” is a “person that has entered into a contract with the . . . qualified data center to use or deploy data center equipment physically located within the qualified data center for a period of 1 or more years.” The new law defines “affiliate” to mean a person that controls or is controlled by the qualified data center, or a person that is under common control with the qualified data center; however, the exemption statute does not specify a specific ownership threshold required for “control.” Importantly, the Michigan data center exemption provides that exempt “data center equipment,” includes “only computers, servers, routers, switches, peripheral computer devices, racks, shelving, cabling, wiring, storage batteries, back-up generators, uninterrupted power supply units, environmental control equipment, other redundant power supply equipment, and prewritten computer software used in operating, managing, or maintaining the qualified data center or the business of the qualified data center or a colocated business.” 

The exemption is set to expire December 31, 2035, but two provisions in the new law could cause the exemption to expire at an earlier date unless the Michigan Department of Talent and Economic Development (TED) determines that certain benchmarks are met. Under the first benchmark date for the exemption to continue to apply, colocated businesses and qualified data center contractors must have created a sufficient number of at least 400 data center industry jobs or related jobs by January 1, 2022, or the exemption will be repealed as of that date. Under the second benchmark date, at least 1,000 such jobs must be created by January 1, 2026, or the exemption will be repealed as of that date.  

By Hanish Patel and Jonathan Feldman

The Georgia Department of Revenue held a public hearing on a proposed regulation amendment that would materially affect the use of direct pay permits in Georgia. The proposed regulation would cause all current permits to expire on December 31, 2016, and require all current holders to reapply and agree to certain conditions, most notably the waiver of interest on refunds of taxes remitted on purchases made with the permit. See Prior Coverage. The Department’s proposed amendment comes amid pending Georgia legislation, H.B. 960, that seeks to redress Georgia’s current 12% interest rate by aligning the rate based on the prevailing market rate. Sutherland submitted formal comments and testified on behalf of the Georgia Association of Manufacturers advocating against final adoption of the proposed amendment given its deleterious effects for Georgia manufacturers and direct pay permit holders, and the pending legislation directly addressing the matter. (Sutherland Comments to Notice Number SUT 2016-001).

By Todd Betor and Jonathan Feldman

On February 11, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the receipts earned by Orbitz, an online travel company, from its services and markups for reserved rooms are not subject to sales tax. Specifically, the court determined that Orbitz is not “furnishing” rooms or lodging for purposes of Wisconsin sales tax and rejected the Department’s argument that Orbitz acts as an agent of the hotels. In interpreting the taxing statute, any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. The court further found that Orbitz’s service of making hotel reservations, but not actually furnishing the accommodations, is not a taxable service. Finally, the court rejected the Department’s attempt to analogize inconsistent decisions from other jurisdictions. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue v. Orbitz, LLC, No. 2015AP200 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2016).

The New Jersey Division of Taxation recently named John Ficara as its new director, who will perform in an acting capacity until confirmed by the Senate.

In their article for State Tax Notes, Sutherland attorneys Leah Robinson and Open Weaver Banks interview Mr. Ficara to discuss his new role, what drew him to government service and why taxpayers should be happy getting a “bad” deal.

View the full article, reprinted from the February 15, 2016, issue of State Tax Notes.

Read our February 2016 posts on stateandlocaltax.com or read each article by clicking on the title. For the latest coverage and commentary on state and local tax developments delivered directly to your phone, download the latest version of the Sutherland SALT Shaker mobile app.

CushSleeping2.jpgMeet Cush, the handsome five-year-old dachshund-corgi mix belonging to Sutherland SALT Partner, Carley Roberts, and her husband Jeremy.

Carley and Jeremy never thought they’d add a seventh dog to their extensive furry family. However, after many months of random visits from this sweet boy, who happily wandered over to their 10-acre property from a neighbor’s yard multiple times a week, they decided he should stay.

The Roberts spoke to their neighbor and learned that Cush was a child of divorce and actually belonged to the neighbor’s daughter who lived elsewhere and could no longer keep him. To her credit, the neighbor admitted to not being much of a dog person and agreed that Cush would be much happier with the Roberts.

Cush now enjoys the good life and loves to lounge in the sun on the deck, accompany his parents to Home Depot and Green Acres, and play fetch. He has several favorite toys and is the only one in the pack who will stand on his hind legs and lower his head deep into the toy basket to 

choose a toy and initiate some play time.

Cush-Toy.jpg

Cush loves his new family and is so proud to be February’s Pet of the Month!

       Cush-with-football.jpg

Cush-Playing.jpg

By Hanish Patel and Marc Simonetti

In a Chief Counsel Ruling, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) ruled that, for purposes of determining its sale factor, a financial information provider should source the sales of its information services based on where the taxpayer’s customer receives the benefit of the service, and not where the ultimate customer (the taxpayer’s customer’s customer) receives the benefit.  The taxpayer provides financial data—real-time stock quotes, company screenings and other market research data—to business entity customers that, in turn, use the data to manage portfolios and offer products to their own customers. Additionally, the FTB ruled that the taxpayer could identify and measure the location of the benefit received based on the relative computing power usages of its customers because the computing power correlated to the fees received for the service. Cal. FTB Chief Counsel Ruling No. 2015-02 (released Feb. 19, 2016).

 By Liz Cha and Todd Lard

Applying the “true object” test to the taxpayer’s web-based services, the Tennessee Department of Revenue ruled that charges for granting access to the taxpayer’s website for purposes of obtaining information would not be subject to sales tax. While the access to web-based services is tax-exempt as a sale of services, a subscription to the taxpayer’s web-based technology solution system that allows a customer to manage its own information is taxable as a sale of remotely accessed software. However, the taxpayer’s purchase of the technology solution system from a third party qualifies for a sale for resale exemption if it provides the third party with a properly completed resale certificate. Tennessee Letter Ruling No. 16-01, 01/26/2016.

By Charles Capouet and Charlie Kearns

The Georgia Department of Revenue released a letter ruling stating that a taxpayer’s health-related information service was not subject to sales and use tax. The service includes a web portal to provide health information and track the user’s personal results and the in-person performance of an annual biometric health assessment. The taxpayer’s service was not taxable because Georgia does not expressly designate the service as taxable. Ga. Letter Ruling SUT-2015-03, Ga. Dep’t of Revenue (issued Apr. 16, 2015, released Feb. 2016).