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: A bill was introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would enact a sales tax holiday for certain purchases related to this Fall holiday.

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

The prize for the first correct 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!

Members of our SALT team will participate in four conferences this week, covering emerging state tax controversies and key developments affecting the hospitality, communications and broader business landscape.

HOTEC Hospitality Tax Conference

SALT Partners Ted Friedman and Charlie Kearns will present “State Taxation of Digital Ads, Data Processing and Information Services: Impact on the Hotel Industry” at the HOTEC Hospitality Tax Conference, taking place May 4–6 in New Orleans.

Their session will examine recent and emerging state tax controversies affecting the hospitality industry, including:

  • Digital advertising litigation
  • Ongoing disputes over the taxation of data processing services and information services

46th Annual Tax Executives Institute (TEI) Region 10 Conference

SALT Partners Liz Cha and Tim Gustafson are pleased to join the 46th Annual TEI Region 10 Conference, taking place May 5-7 in Newport Beach, CA. Liz will provide an indirect tax update, while Tim will discuss current trends in M&A.

Register to join them here.

65th Annual TEI Upstate New York Tax Conference

On Wednesday, May 6, SALT attorneys Todd Betor and Madison Ball will join the TEI Buffalo-Niagara and Rochester Chapters for its 65th Annual TEI Upstate New York Tax Conference. They will present a SALT controversy update.

TeleStrategies’ Communication Taxation Conference

Finally, SALT Partners Liz Cha and Chelsea Marmor are looking forward to presenting at TeleStrategies’ Communication Taxation Conference, taking place May 6–8 in San Diego, CA.

Their panels will dive into timely issues facing the communications industry, including the resurgence of gross receipts taxes and new communications‑specific fees, as well as key litigation and controversies in telecommunications taxation – from the treatment of hardware and software to emerging interpretations of the ITFA and challenges around bundled taxable and nontaxable services.

Register to join this year’s event 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: Subject to budget approval, the MTC agreed to reduce the member assessment of which state to $60,000 for the upcoming fiscal year due to the state’s budget deficit?

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

The prize for the first correct 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!

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Partners Jeremy Gove and Chelsea Marmor break down two noteworthy Texas franchise tax decisions that provide important guidance on sourcing and federal preemption.

The hosts first discuss NuStar Energy LP v. Hancock, a Texas Supreme Court decision addressing how receipts from the sale of tangible personal property are sourced for franchise tax purposes. The court held that receipts are sourced to Texas based on where the property is delivered to the buyer, rejecting an “ultimate use” or consumption-based approach, even where the property (bunker fuel) could not legally be used in Texas.

They then turn to Hancock v. American Airlines, where a Texas appellate court concluded that the federal Anti‑Head Tax Act preempts application of the Texas franchise tax to certain airline revenue streams. The court determined that, despite being styled as a margin tax, the franchise tax functions as a tax on gross receipts from air transportation, bringing it within the scope of federal preemption.

The episode wraps up with an overrated/underrated debate on standing desks.

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:

The taxpayer, a designer, marketer, and wholesaler of apparel and other fashion accessories, shipped products to its customer’s Ohio distribution center. The taxpayer argued that most of its products were subsequently shipped by its customer outside of Ohio after being received at the Ohio distribution center. And, because of this subsequent shipment, the taxpayer should be entitled to reduce its Ohio Commercial Activity Tax sales factor numerator. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the taxpayer’s position because it failed to document the amount of products that were shipped outside of Ohio.

The taxpayer presented testimony evidence of one of its employees who stated that he was certain that at least eighty percent of the products were shipped outside of Ohio. Additional evidence was provided by an employee of the taxpayer’s legal representative who provided a calculation using data from a subsequent period. The Court found that the evidence presented was not the type of supporting documentation sufficient to justify the taxpayer’s refund claim. 

Jones Apparel Group/Nine W. Holdings v. Harris, 2026-Ohio-74 (2026).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the National Bank Act (NBA) does not preempt Illinois’ Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA), which prohibits credit card and debit card transaction processors from charging interchange fees on the portion of any card transaction that includes state and local taxes and gratuities.

In 2024, Illinois enacted the IFPA which has two components: (i) the prohibition on interchange fees on state and local taxes and gratuities, and (ii) a data usage limitation prohibiting all entities in a transaction other than merchants from distributing, exchanging, transferring, disseminating, or using transaction data except to facilitate or process the payment. Following the court granting a preliminary injunction, the Illinois Bankers’ Association requested a permanent injunction against the IFPA, arguing that the NBA preempts IFPA. The court rejected that preemption request, concluding that payment card networks, rather than banks, set the interchange rates the IFPA is regulating. Because the IFPA’s limitation on interchange rates “does not directly regulate banks”, the NBA does not preempt the IFPA’s regulation of interchange rates. The court similarly concluded that the IFPA’s interchange fee limitation was not preempted for out-of-state banks or federal credit unions.

The court reached a different conclusion as to the IFPA’s. data usage limitation, granting a permanent injunction regarding the IFPA’s data usage limitation as to national banks, out-of-state banks, federal credit unions, payment card networks and “others involved in the payment process” because the data limitation “directly constrains” the power of national banks to process data “to monitor credit card fraud, address payment disputes, and facilitate cardholder loyalty programs.” The court went on to agree that the data usage limitation is “so tied up” between the parties, that preemption must run to the others involved in the payment process as well, not just national banks.

The case is now on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with oral arguments anticipated to take place in May, in advance of the IFPA taking effect on July 1, 2026.

Ill. Bankers Ass’n v. Raoul, Case No. 24 07307 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 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: An appellate court of which state recently held that COVID-19 did not qualify as a “natural disaster” for purposes of property tax relief?

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

The prize for the first correct 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 Indiana Tax Court addressed whether cell phones qualify for Indiana’s telecommunications equipment exemption from sales and use tax. New Cingular purchased certain cell phones that were later used to fulfill contractual obligations by either providing them free to customers who entered service agreements, or by issuing replacements under insurance programs. New Cingular sought a refund of use tax paid on those phones, asserting that the phones were exempt as “radio or microwave transmitting or receiving equipment.” The Department denied the refund, arguing that the exemption applied only to central network infrastructure under the provider’s custody and control, and not customer-used devices.

The court rejected the Department’s position, finding no textual support for limiting the exemption to infrastructure equipment. Furthermore, the court concluded the relevant “acquisition” for use‑tax purposes was New Cingular’s purchase of the phones from suppliers, not the customers’ subsequent receipt of the phones.

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 24T‑TA‑00004 (Ind. Tax Ct. Mar. 31, 2026).

Bundled and mixed transactions continue to play an ever‑increasing role in New York sales tax determinations, particularly where nontaxable services are sold with software or other taxable property for one nonitemized price.

In this installment of “A Pinch of SALT,” published by Tax Notes State, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jeremy Gove and Periklis Fokaidis examine how New York’s recent decisions evaluating bundled transactions have led to confusion – and how the Appellate Division’s decision in Matter of Beeline may finally be providing clarity.

Read the full article here.

On April 2, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ruled that a liquor supplier was subject to Maine income tax and owed nearly $750,000 in state income tax, penalties, and interest for the 2011-2017 tax years.

The liquor supplier argued that it was not subject to income tax because it did not have nexus with the state and because PL 86-272 protections applied in any event. The Court rejected both arguments. It found that the taxpayer had nexus because Maine’s law applicable to liquor sales required the supplier to ship liquor to a bailment warehouse in Maine under contracts that provided the supplier retained title to the liquor until removed from the warehouse. The Court thus concluded that the taxpayer owned property at the bailment warehouse in Maine and made sales from that warehouse, sufficient to give it nexus under Maine’s income tax statute. The Court rejected the taxpayer’s PL 86-272 argument for the same reason, finding that the compelled bailment and compelled delay in transfer of title exceeded the protected activities of PL 86-272, and thus the Company was subject to income tax.

State Tax Assessor v. Fifth Generation, Inc., No. Ken‑24‑490 (Me. Apr. 2, 2026).