Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
In an article for Bloomberg Tax, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Liz Cha and Jeremy Gove summarize recent tax developments in New York, including ones involving fiber-optic broadband and the treatment of buy-sell arrangements for petroleum products.
Read the full article here.
An Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court’s dismissal of a qui tam action filed against a United Kingdom-based tailoring shop. The court held that although the tailor’s failure to investigate its use tax collection obligations was “an ostrich-type situation,” the tailor nevertheless did not violate the Illinois False Claims Act.
The Illinois False Claims Act provides two theories of liability:
The Act defines “knowingly” to include a person: (i) having actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acting in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acting in “reckless disregard” of the truth or falsity of the information. The Relator claimed the tailor’s failure to investigate its tax responsibilities was reckless disregard of the tax law.
The tailor’s failure to investigate its use tax obligation could have been sufficient to demonstrate that it acted with reckless disregard, but the Relator failed to seek and submit discovery on the tailor’s nexus with Illinois to support a finding of scienter, i.e. the requisite knowledge under the False Claims Act.
Further, in choosing to use the words “avoid” and “conceal,” the court found that the legislature intended to cover only those persons who intentionally choose not to meet their tax obligation, rather than a merely failing to pay tax.
The record failed to show the tailor knowingly concealed, avoided, or decreased an overpayment it received from the State of Illinois. Therefore a dismissal of the qui tam action was warranted.
Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!
We will award prizes for the smartest (and fastest) participants.
This week’s question: Which state’s legislature recently overrode a governor’s veto of a bill that creates a payroll tax to increase funding for child care?
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 posted on Saturday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!
The power and reach of administrative agencies — often led by unelected officials — has long been a source of controversy. Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute administered by that agency should be given deference if (1) the statutory provision is ambiguous and (2) the agency’s interpretation is merely reasonable. Since then, the case “has become ‘the most cited case in modern public law.’” For state tax practitioners, this is nothing new — deference to a tax collector’s interpretation of the tax law was taken for granted well before Chevron was decided, and its application extended beyond formally promulgated regulations.
Wide variation between and within states’ administrative deference doctrines are problematic for obvious reasons. Taxpayers and businesses are harmed when there is uncertainty whether the law will be applied the same way in factually (and substantively) similar circumstances. But the rise of state tax tribunals, recent judicial opinions, and legislative and voter actions call into question the continued existence and viability of Chevron and related doctrines: How much deference should tax administrators be entitled to (if any)?
In this installment of A Pinch of SALT in Tax Notes State, Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jonathan Feldman, Cyavash Ahmadi and Cat Baron explore the deference afforded to state administrative agencies and suggest that, perhaps, the high-water mark is behind us.
Read the full article here.
The New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department recently updated FYI-206, which describes the gross receipts tax collection responsibilities for online marketplace providers and sellers. The updated guidance reflects the new reduced gross receipts tax rate used for out-of-state taxpayers, 4.875%. Additionally, the updated guidance provides that marketplace providers may use Form TRD-31117, Marketplace Provider Data Sharing Agreement, to report to the Department a list of marketplace sellers it facilities sales for and paying gross receipts tax on those sales.
Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!
We will award prizes for the smartest (and fastest) participants.
This week’s question: Which state recently approved legislation that requires its revenue services department to study the possibility of creating a blanket sales and use tax exemption for nonprofit organizations?
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 posted on Saturday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!
Curious what the top 10 sales tax issues for 2023 are? Join Eversheds Sutherland attorneys Jonathan Feldman and Alla Raykin as they cover this topic during the Southeastern Association of Tax Administrators (SEATA) 73rd Annual Conference in Little Rock, AR on July 18.
For more information and to register, click here.
View and learn more about past and upcoming events and presentations for the SALT team.
Calling all trivia fans! Don’t miss out on a chance to show off your SALT knowledge!
We will award prizes for the smartest (and fastest) participants.
This week’s question: The Washington Court of Appeals recently held that a provider of what type of services for its affiliate’s enrollees met the insurance business exemption to the B&O 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 posted on Saturday in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that retroactive application of the 2014 revisions to the “prepaid telephone calling card” provision of the Tax Code were unconstitutional as applied to the taxpayer. Taxpayer, an authorized dealer for Boost Mobile (“Boost”), sold Boost prepaid wireless-service plans to customers, but did not collect and remit the sales tax on the transactions. After an audit, the Department of Revenue (“Department”) assessed the taxpayer for the unpaid sales tax on the transaction and took the position that the transactions were subject to the sales tax under the “prepaid telephone calling card” provision of the Tax Code even though, as a Department employee conceded at trial, the type of prepaid wireless service provided by Boost through the taxpayer did not exist when the provision was enacted. While the assessment was being appealed at the Tax Tribunal, the legislature revised the Tax Code to require that the type of prepaid wireless service provided by Boost through the taxpayer would be subject to the sales tax. The revisions also included a provision stating that this change was prospective only except for “audits that began or assessments that were entered” prior to the effective date of the changes. The taxpayer asserted that this retroactive application violated its due process rights. The trial court agreed, holding that the taxpayer was not liable for the sales tax because the revisions, as applied to the taxpayer, were unconstitutional since the changes only applied retroactively to taxpayers who were either under audit or had an assessment entered against them as of the effective date of the revisions but did not apply retroactively to other taxpayers.
On appeal, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, held that the retroactive application of the revisions to some taxpayers but not others “was not supported by a legislative purpose furthered by rational means.” The court disagreed with the Department’s argument that the retroactivity was constitutional because the revisions only clarified the “prepaid telephone calling card” provision of the Tax Code and that this clarification was rational. The court stated that “it was not the clarification … that the trial court determined was not supported by a legislative purpose furthered by rational means; it was [the] retroactive application to a small number of taxpayers … while exempting other taxpayers from the retroactive application[.]” The court also rejected the Department’s argument that that the language of the statute before the revisions made the taxpayer liable for the sales tax. The court stated that the plain language of the statute did not subject the taxpayer’s “receipt of a prepayment for Boost’s wireless service” to the sales tax.
On March 23, 2023, the Washington Department of Revenue issued an emergency rule-making order. The purpose of the emergency rule was to make the public aware that certain of the Department’s administrative rules concerning remote sellers’ sales and use tax nexus and minimum nexus thresholds for the state’s business and occupation tax may be outdated. Specifically, the Department cautioned that the public should not use Rules 193 (Interstate sales of tangible personal property), 221 (Collection of use tax by retailers and selling agents), and 19401 (Minimum nexus thresholds for apportionable activities and selling activities) “to determine their sales or use tax collection obligations or to determine substantial nexus for apportionable activities and selling activities for periods beginning on or after October 1, 2018.” The Department explained that the rules may be outdated because, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5581 (2019) “clarified the sales tax obligation for remote sellers and when a person is deemed to have substantial nexus for business and occupation (B&O) tax purposes.” Substitute Senate Bill No. 5581 (2019) provides that substantial nexus is established by a nonresident individual or business entity who has more than $100,000 of cumulative gross receipts in Washington in the current or immediately preceding year.
