Indiana released Information Bulletin #89 updating guidance for remote sellers and marketplace facilitators. The guidance, which became effective July 1, implements SEA 408. It also notes, among other things, that marketplace facilitators must include both transactions made on its own behalf and transactions facilitated on behalf of their sellers when making the determination as

The Colorado Department of Revenue has proposed several regulations related to taxation of digital goods, remote sales, and marketplace collection. First, it proposed a “doing-business” rule, which clarifies a person maintains a business in Colorado if the person meets the economic nexus test of $100,000 annual retail sales in Colorado. It also proposed another

Kansas lawmakers did not take their second bite at the remote-seller and marketplace-facilitator apple during a special legislative session. On June 3, 2020, Representative Steven Johnson re-introduced HB 2014, which would have required remote sellers with $100,000 or more in annual in-state sales to collect and remit taxes and would have required marketplace facilitators

Kansas Legislators adjourned their legislative sessions without passing key state tax legislation: S.B. 266 would have established legislative thresholds for its remote seller rules and would have enacted remittance requirements for marketplace facilitators, but the initiative failed. Without S.B. 266, Kansas also won’t apply a legislative threshold to the remote-seller collection rules.

On May 22, the Louisiana House Ways and Means Committee advanced S.B. 138, which would impose tax collection and remittance obligations on marketplace facilitators if they have either $100,000 of in-state sales or 200 separate transactions into the state. The proposal excepts telecommunication service providers from the definition of marketplace sellers and would allow

The Georgia Tax Tribunal, in its first published decisions in more than a year, held that:

  • Scholastic Book Clubs has nexus in Georgia and must collect sales tax as a result of its relationship with teachers in the state; and
  • In a case affording significant deference to the Department’s regulations, a taxpayer that elects to