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 member of the Multistate Tax Commission recently joined Eversheds Sutherland Partner Nikki Dobay for an episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast policy series?

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.

Answers will be posted on Saturdays in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts held its annual meeting on August 17 and provided taxpayers with updates regarding legislation, audit procedures, staffing, and other related topics. The meeting, which was held virtually, struck a positive tone regarding Texas’ fiscal outlook and taxpayer-friendly procedural changes.

Audit updates: hope in sight for staffing shortages and the R&D backlog

Audit Director Emma Fuentes provided an update regarding the state of the Comptroller’s audit division. Fuentes said that although the Comptroller’s auditors are partially working remotely due to the pandemic, in-person field visits and appointments have resumed. Audits are being generated at pre-pandemic rates for all industries and the Comptroller is no longer offering automatic extensions of time to respond to redetermination notices.

Texas’ controversial research and development credit audits are no longer on hold, but the audit division is working through a backlog of roughly 1,200 assignments related to approximately 450 taxpayers. The Comptroller’s audits of research and development credits have drawn criticism from the taxpayer community because Texas claims to have a higher burden of proof for these credits than R&D credits offered by other states and the federal government. The Texas Comptroller also does not automatically accept IRS sampling methods or audit findings regarding research and development credit documentation, creating unpleasant surprises and increased costs to substantiate credit amounts.

Fuentes said that the Comptroller recently hired new auditors to assist with the massive R&D credit backlog, but estimates that it is roughly 120 auditors short of being fully staffed.

New tax protest options and a push toward settling tax disputes

This year the Comptroller dedicated an entire annual update session to new legislation changing Texas’ tax protest procedures. H.B. 2080 eliminated the state’s “pay-to-play” rule for taxpayers to file tax protest lawsuits in district court. Now, a taxpayer can file in district court without first paying a disputed tax assessment. This law change came amid uncertainty regarding whether the state’s prior pay-to-play rules violated the Texas constitution’s open courts guarantees.

Another bill, S.B. 903, allows a taxpayer claiming a tax refund to file with the Comptroller a notice of intent to bypass a tax refund hearing. The notice of intent must:

  • be filed within 60 days after the comptroller denied the claim;
  • be in writing;
  • assert the material facts and each specific legal basis on which a refund was claimed; and
  • specify the amount of the refund claimed.

Additionally, the Comptroller can force a taxpayer to participate in a conference to clarify the issues contained in the taxpayer’s claim.

Associate Deputy Comptroller Karey Barton said administrative hearings remain an attractive option for taxpayers who do not want the expense and hazards of litigation associated with a district court lawsuit.  The total number of active hearings at the Comptroller’s office has dropped during the pandemic, but Barton attributes this to an internal process that identifies taxpayers’ redetermination petitions for settlement prior to hearings.

Sarah Pai, Senior Counsel for Tax Compliance, said that the Comptroller’s office is supportive of these taxpayer-friendly law changes because it frees up the Comptroller to dedicate more resources to taxability questions versus time-intensive procedural issues.

Legislative and rulemaking updates: booze, ATVs, and sourcing disputes

Comptroller staff detailed a variety of new rules implementing recently-passed tax legislation.

  • Marketplace providers: The Comptroller amended several rules to implement S.B. 477, which requires marketplace providers to collect taxes and fees (in addition to Texas sales and use tax) that may apply to marketplace sales (such as wireless 911 fees and lead-acid battery fees). The bill also allows marketplace providers to accept resale certificates for sales of event tickets and clarifies that marketplace providers are not eligible to claim the occasional sale exemption.
  • Data processing: Amendments to Rule 3.330 implement changes in S.B. 153 that “clarify” an existing Comptroller policy regarding the exemption of payment processors from Texas’ sales tax for data processing services. Notably, the bill states that exempt services involving “settling of an electronic payment transaction” do not include charges by a marketplace provider.
  • Insurance services: H.B. 1445 and amended Rule 3.355 provide that medical and dental billing services performed prior to an insurance claim submission are not taxable “insurance services.” The Comptroller stated that it will enforce the rule immediately, rather than the Jan. 1, 2022 effective date. This legislation was enacted in response to the Comptroller’s shifting position on the taxability of medical-related insurance services.
  • Pets: Acknowledging the number of pandemic-related pet adoptions, amendments to Rule 3.316 expands the types of organizations that are eligible to make tax-exempt adoptions of animals.
  • Booze: Texas residents were most excited about H.B. 1024, which made pandemic-related alcohol-to-go rules permanent. The law also fixed some quirks with pandemic rules, such as mixed-beverage taxes only applying to permit holders for on premise consumption, rather than off-premise consumption. H.B. 1755 similarly allows customers to take home unopened bottles of wine – prior to the amendment to-go alcohol was limited to opened bottles.
  • Energy bills: Generally, taxpayers without a sales and use tax permit were required to procure a right-of-assignment form from a vendor to obtain a sales tax refund. S.B. 833 created an exception for oil and gas producers that report severance tax but are otherwise non-permitted taxpayers. Because producers purchase a significant quantity of goods and services from a variety of vendors and assignment forms must be executed by a corporate officer for each vendor, the refund assignment requirement resulted in a cumbersome and inefficient process for all parties involved. Additionally several bills (H.B. 1520, S.B. 1580, and H.B. 4492) provide exemptions to help Texas energy producers impacted by the state’s historic winter storm.
  • Resale and exemption certificates: S.B. 296 and amended Rule 3.282 allows taxpayers to take an extra 30 days to provide resale and exemption certificates during audits. The Comptroller noted that a best practice is to obtain these certificates at the time of sale.
  • ATVs: The Texas Comptroller noted that a number of Texans are scooting into nearby states to purchase ATVs. S.B. 586 is a clean-up bill that expands use tax reporting requirements from ATV manufacturers to ATV distributers that have begun voluntarily registering in Texas and remitting use tax on behalf of their Texas customers.

Finally, Associate Deputy Comptroller Karey Barton noted that several Texas cities have filed lawsuits challenging Comptroller Rule 3.334, which changes the sourcing of sales tax imposed on online purchases to the destination  (i.e., buyer’s location) instead of the origin (i.e., seller’s place of business). Barton indicated the Comptroller intends to defend the rule.

Fiscal outlook: Texas sees green

In July 2020, the Texas Comptroller’s Certification Revenue Estimate projected a $4.58 billion deficit for the 2020-21 biennium. The Comptroller now projects a $7.85 billion surplus, which also has yet to appropriate $16 billion from the American Rescue Plan. Additionally, the state’s “rainy day” fund balance is projected to be approximately $12 billion by the end of the next biennium, showing that the Lone Star State is not hurting for cash.

On August 10, 2021, the Hawaii Department of Taxation issued Tax Information Release No. 2021-06, clarifying the treatment and taxability of software sales under Hawaii’s general excise tax (GET). According to the Information Release, the sale of prewritten software is considered the sale of taxable tangible personal property regardless of whether the software is delivered via a tangible medium (e.g., disk) or transferred electronically. The Department also treats the license to use prewritten software as the taxable sale of tangible personal property. Conversely, the Department treats the sale (or license) of custom software as a service, subject to the GET rate imposed on services. In both instances, if the sale of tangible personal property or services is made by a wholesaler to a licensed seller, the initial transaction may be eligible for the wholesaler tax rate of 0.5% rather than the 4% retailer rate. If the software is sold through a marketplace facilitator, the marketplace facilitator is deemed to be the retail seller subject to GET at the 4% retailer rate, while the marketplace seller is treated as making its sales as a wholesaler.

On August 17, 2021, the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) held its first meeting of the State Taxation of Partnerships Project (the Partnership Project), during which the work group discussed a draft outline of partnership issues. The Partnership Project is being chaired by Laurie McEhatton (California Franchise Tax Board) and staffed by Helen Hecht (General Counsel at the MTC).

As an introduction, MTC staff (Hecht) provided an overview of the Partnership Project. The project’s first step has been the creation of an outline that identifies and describes a list of comprehensive issues existing in the area of state partnership taxation. Thus far, the current draft is divided into four sections: (1) General Terminology, (2) Taxation of Partnership Income and Items; (3) Taxation of Gain (Loss) from Sales of a Partnership Interest; and (4) Administrative Enforcement. MTC staff reiterated that the outline is a working draft, and ongoing changes will be made to the outline as the Partnership Project advances.

MTC staff then went into a more in-depth discussion of the first and second sections of the outline (General Terminology and Taxation of Partnership Income and Items).  First, the discussion of the General Terminology section consisted of an overview of certain terms defined in the outline. Given that each state interprets terms differently, uniform definitions/understanding of concepts will be imperative for the Partnership Project’s success.  Next, with respect to the second section of the outline, jurisdiction, nexus and sourcing were discussed.  Specifically, MTC staff noted these issues vary significantly amongst the states, and each state has its own rules to determine the partnership tax base. Thus, the Partnership Project will consider ways in which the states can achieve uniformity as it relates to these matters.

The Partnership Project will hold bi-weekly meetings. During the next meeting, MTC staff will continue to go over the outline and analyze the potential issues existing in state partnership tax. Eversheds Sutherland attorneys plan to attend all meetings and provide timely updates.

 

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 Oregon Governor recently signed Senate Bill 164, which provides a fiscal-year filing option for Oregon Corporate Activity Tax taxpayers who use a fiscal tax year rather than a calendar year for federal tax purposes?

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.

Answers will be posted on Saturdays in our SALT Shaker Weekly Digest. Be sure to check back then!

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast, Host and Eversheds Sutherland Associate Jeremy Gove is joined by Partner Nikki Dobay to explore the interim final rule issued by the Treasury regarding state and local government aid and the even more notorious “clawback” provided by the American Rescue Plan Act. Nikki and Partner Jeff Friedman recently co-authored an article on the topic in Tax Notes State, and the two discuss the piece as well as a fun, nontax topic – whether celebrity wines and vineyards are underrated or overrated.

Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listen now: 

Subscribe for more:

   

In Revenue Ruling 2021-001, the Alabama Department of Revenue ruled that IT services provided by a foreign company with no physical presence in Alabama are not subject to sales tax. The foreign company provided an information technology system remotely to an Alabama production plant. Although the company provided these services remotely, it would also provide additional services, such as hot line support and training handouts, and would have in-person representatives at the Alabama plant every six months. The Ruling concluded that these additional services, where separately stated from any software, were nontaxable services rather than a transfer of computer software “akin to an optional software maintenance agreement.” Additionally, any incidental transfer of tangible personal property, such as the handouts, would not make the services subject to tax. Therefore, the foreign company was not liable for sales tax, so long as the nontaxable services were separately stated on the invoice and did not involve the transfer of computer software.

The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) adopted its long-awaited guidance interpreting Public Law (P.L.) 86-272 protections for internet businesses on August 4, 2021. P.L. 86-272 was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1959, and protects businesses from the imposition of state income tax when the business’s only activity in the state is the solicitation of orders of tangible personal property. While the guidance is not binding on MTC member states, it provides a framework for understanding the reach of P.L. 86-272 in the age of e-commerce. While soliciting orders of tangible personal property remains protected, whether done in person or online, the guidance also protects the use of “static text or photos” on a seller’s website from constituting a non-protected business activity. The guidance, however, includes numerous ways that a website or app may defeat a business’s P.L. 86-272 immunity, notably including the placement of “cookies” on computers or other electronic devices of in-state customers that are used to adjust production schedules and inventory, develop new products, or identify new items to offer for sale, as those cookies do not constitute protected in-state solicitation, and are not ancillary to that solicitation. On the other hand, cookies placed on computers or devices that are “only used for purposes entirely ancillary to the solicitation of orders for tangible personal property” such as remembering items in a user’s shopping cart, storing personal information, or reminding customers of items they had previously considered, do not defeat a business’s P.L. 86-272 immunity.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown recently signed Senate Bill 164 (SB 164), which provides a fiscal-year filing option for Oregon Corporate Activity Tax (CAT) taxpayers who use a fiscal tax year rather than a calendar year for federal tax purposes. SB 164 provides that for a fiscal tax year ending during 2021, taxpayers will be required to file short-year CAT returns covering January 1, 2021 through the end of their respective fiscal tax years. In addition, SB 164 edits certain due dates: (1) the return filing due date will become the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the end of the tax year; and (2) the due dates for estimated payments will become the last day of the fourth, seventh and tenth months of the tax year, and the first month following the end of the tax year. SB 164 goes into effect September 25, 2021. The Oregon Department of Revenue recently posted informal guidance regarding SB 164 on its website and sent an email to its subscribers noting that it is developing administrative rules related to the changes made by SB 164 and expects to provide details about such changes in early 2022.

In this episode of the SALT Shaker Podcast policy series, host and Eversheds Sutherland Partner Nikki Dobay is joined by Helen Hecht, Uniformity Counsel at the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC). Helen and Nikki engage in a robust discussion of two of the MTC’s current uniformity projects that are just getting underway – the Partnership Project and the Sales Tax on Digital Products Project. Helen breaks down why these projects were picked by the Uniformity Committee and talks about what we can expect the working groups to focus on over the next few months and years. Then, Nikki and Helen chat about intergalactic tax systems and why they might just be the perfect candidates for an alien abduction.

The Eversheds Sutherland State and Local Tax team has been engaged in state tax policy work for years, tracking tax legislation, helping clients gauge the impact of various proposals, drafting talking points and rewriting legislation. This series, which is focused on state and local tax policy issues, is hosted by Partner Nikki Dobay, who has an extensive background in tax policy.

Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

 

 

 

 

 

Listen now: 

Subscribe for more: