sales tax

Subscribe to sales tax via RSS

The Indiana Supreme Court issued another taxpayer-averse decision, holding that Miller Brewing Company’s sales to Indiana customers are considered Indiana sales even if they are picked up out of state and delivered into Indiana by common carrier. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Tax Court, which relied on an administrative rule example to exclude…

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

Iowa and Kansas recently issued rulings regarding the taxability of cloud-based software applications and online training services. While the conclusions reached by both states—that the services are not taxable—are generally the same, the reasoning relied upon by each department of revenue illustrates the ongoing uncertainty of applying state sales and use tax laws to cloud computing services.

The Iowa Department of Revenue (IDOR) looked to the state’s statutory authority and acknowledged that the taxability of “cloud computing has not been expressly addressed by the Iowa Code.” Nonetheless, the IDOR determined that the sale of hosted software is not taxable because the Iowa Code provides that a “taxable ‘sale’ of tangible personal property does not occur if the substance of the transaction is delivered to the purchaser digitally, electronically, or by utilizing cable, radio waves, microwaves, satellites, or fiber optics.” I.C. § 423.3(67). Likewise, the IDOR considered web-based training to be nontaxable because “software training” is not an enumerated service under the Iowa Code.Continue Reading Iowa and Kansas: Remote Access to Software is Not Taxable . . . Or Is It?

The Washington Department of Revenue (Department) determined that an out-of-state mail order retailer (Taxpayer) had substantial nexus with the state based on the activities of an in-state affiliate (Affiliate), and therefore, upheld an assessment of business and occupation tax (B&O Tax) and sales tax. Determination No. 10-0057 (released Dec. 20, 2011). The Taxpayer sold tangible…

The California State Board of Equalization (BOE) has provided guidance regarding the application of sales and use tax to purchases of tangible property from retailers using certificates such as Groupon or LivingSocial coupons. Special Notice L-297, California State Board of Equalization (Nov. 2011). In particular, the BOE addressed transactions in which retailers contract with Internet-based…

Businesses that sell video games and related content online and by remote access have been pondering an essential sales and use taxability question: What is the proper characterization of the goods and services being sold? Although downloaded video games have long been thought to be a form of prewritten computer software, businesses that sell related subscription services, virtual goods, and virtual currencies have enjoyed much less tax certainty.

Two states have weighed in on this issue in recent months. Kansas and Missouri issued letter rulings addressing the tax issues that arise in the gaming environment. Although the states’ guidance is not entirely consistent, gaming companies may welcome any move toward improved tax clarity in the virtual gaming business.Continue Reading Virtual Chaos: Two States Log In to the Online Gaming Arena

The District of Columbia passed—subject to congressional oversight—tax legislation that ultimately may affect sales and use tax nexus standards throughout the United States. The District of Columbia’s Main Street Tax Fairness Act, which is part of its fiscal 2012 budget, authorizes the District to enforce sales tax on non-physically present sellers under certain circumstances.