Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
On June 18, 2025, in a 5-2 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court held that reimbursements received by Aramark under “management-fee” contracts were not excluded from “gross receipts” as amounts received or acquired by an agent in excess of a commission, fee, or other remuneration.
Aramark is a food services, hospitality, facility services, and uniform services…
The New York Appellate Division, Third Department recently held that a group of taxpayer-plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing an action to declare their services were exempt from sales tax, even though they had not challenged their audit determinations before the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal.
Ordinarily, taxpayers in New…
The Washington Court of Appeals held that the sales of pre-paid telephone airtime purchased from third-party cellular networks by a business (Taxpayer) and resold to individual customers and retailers were subject to the City of Renton’s municipal utility tax.
The utility tax was imposed on the privilege of conducting a “telephone business” within city limits…
On November 6, 2023, the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals determined that Aramark Corporation (“Aramark”) was not entitled to a refund of commercial activity tax (“CAT”) paid on management fees earned by the company in performance of certain cost-plus agreements. Aramark Corporation v. Harris, Case No. 2019-2975 (Ohio Bd. Tax App. Nov. 6, 2023).…
The Washington Department of Revenue’s Administrative Review and Hearings Division recently ruled that a company’s account access services provided to credit unions constituted digital automated services subject to sales tax.
The taxpayer provided an online banking platform and an automated phone system to member credit unions, which in turn provided those services to their individual…
By Marc Simonetti and Douglas Upton
The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that limestone purchased for the dual purpose of absorbing sulfur during the generation of electricity and producing ash for sale to third parties was excluded from the definition of a “sale at retail” by application of the “further processing exclusion” under the Louisiana sales…
By Mike Kerman and Andrew Appleby
The Louisiana Court of Appeals held that a paperboard products manufacturer was entitled to refunds of sales tax it paid on purchases of chemicals it used in the manufacturing process under the “further processing” exclusion. The chemicals met the exclusion’s three-part test because they: (1) were identifiable components of…
