Minnesota

Subscribe to Minnesota via RSS

By Maria Todorova and Prentiss Willson

The Minnesota Tax Court held that computer software consulting and implementation services were not subject to sales tax in Minnesota. The taxpayer, SAP Retail, Inc., licensed enterprise resource planning software. It also provided consultation and implementation services to configure the software to a customer’s particular business activities. The court…

On March 22, 2012, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed House Bill 384 (2012) into law, expanding the types of companies that are required to collect and remit Utah sales and use tax. HB 384 requires sellers that hold “substantial ownership interests” in certain “related sellers” to collect and remit Utah sales and use tax. Today, the Utah State Tax Commission released guidance on how to determine whether a business entity’s activities trigger the state’s new affiliate nexus law. The new nexus regulations go into effect on July 1, 2012.

The new affiliate nexus law, Utah Code Ann. § 59-12-107(2)(b), treats a seller as if it is selling tangible personal property, a service, or a product transferred electronically for use in Utah and will be required to collect and remit sales and use taxes if:Continue Reading Utah Quietly Expands Affiliate Nexus Statute

On cross motions for summary judgment, the Minnesota Tax Court held the activities of an out-of-state watch and jewelry distributor (Taxpayer) went beyond mere solicitation of orders for tangible goods in the state of Minnesota and established sufficient nexus to impose Minnesota’s corporate franchise tax. Skagen Designs Ltd. v. Comm’r of Revenue, Minn. Tax. Ct., No. 8168-R (Apr. 23, 2012). The Taxpayer employed two types of employees in Minnesota, sales representatives and merchandisers (Merchandisers). The application of Public Law 86-272 to the Merchandisers’ activities, including completing weekly reports, maintaining product floor maps, holding product training sessions and inspecting display cases, were at issue before the court.Continue Reading Time to Pay Up: Public Law 86-272 Does Not Protect Watch Distributor’s Merchandising Activities

Several states are turning to contingent-fee audit contractors, sometimes referred to as “bounty hunters,” as a means of increasing corporate income tax collections. Bounty hunter firms are compensated based on the tax assessed, thus encouraging these firms to aggressively assess taxpayers.

Not surprisingly, contingent-fee-based auditors are supporting legislation in several states that would require state tax agencies to enter into contingent-fee audit contracts. Contingent-fee audits are viewed by corporate taxpayers (and some courts) as unfair, hostile, and bad public policy because the auditors have a financial stake in the outcome of the audit.Continue Reading Bounty Hunters Gone Wild! States Turn to Controversial Contingent-Fee Auditors