Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Kathryn Pittman and Andrew Appleby
The Utah Department of Revenue concluded that gift codes sold by an out-of-state seller (Gift Code Issuer) to Utah consumers were not subject to sales and use tax and that specified activities conducted by third parties in Utah relating to such sales of gift codes did not create nexus…
By Jessica Kerner and Pilar Mata
In an Advisory Opinion, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance held that a taxpayer developing a data center for Internet services is eligible for the State’s sales and use tax exemption pertaining to Internet data centers. In order to qualify for the exemption, the tangible…
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a $2.2 billion transaction involving the sale of assets related to the Grey Goose vodka product line did not constitute a “sale” for purposes of apportioning the Michigan Single Business Tax (SBT). Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 306742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). The taxpayer, Sidney Frank, transferred all of its tangible and intangible assets in the top-shelf vodka, including inventory, to Bacardi, Ltd. The transaction produced a substantial gain, and Sidney Frank included the proceeds in the denominator of its sales factor for 2004 apportionment purposes.
For purposes of the SBT, which was repealed in 2006, “sale” was defined in relevant part as the amounts received from the rental, lease, license or use of property that constitutes business activity. The taxpayer argued that the transfer of the Grey Goose assets was a sale of intangible property (and thus the proceeds should be included in the sales factor denominator) because it was a “use” of intellectual property. The Department argued that the term “sale” includes only transactions where the taxpayer allows a person to use property and does not transfer title to the property.Continue Reading The (Grey) Goose that Got Cooked in Michigan
On January 8, 2013, the Sutherland State and Local Tax (SALT) Team appeared before the Oregon Supreme Court in an important case concerning the scope of Oregon’s central assessment method of property taxation. Comcast Corporation v. Department of Revenue, Case No. S059764. The issue in the case concerns whether cable television and Internet access services are within the scope of “data transmission services” for ad valorem tax purposes. This case is being followed closely by participants in the Digital Economy (e.g., sellers of Internet access, digital goods and services, and cloud computing providers) and taxing jurisdictions throughout the country.Continue Reading Sutherland SALT Argues Digital Economy Central Assessment Case
On December 18, 2012, the California Court of Appeal ruled that receipts from the right to replicate software are sourced as sales “other than tangible personal property.” In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal upheld the taxpayer’s use of costs of performance sourcing. Microsoft Corporation v. Franchise Tax Board, Case No. A131964…
On October 16, 2012, the Virginia Department of Taxation issued two identical determinations in which it found cable set-top boxes (a/k/a “converters”) exempt from the Business Tangible Personal Property (BTPP) tax (Ruling Nos. PD 12-162 and PD 12-163). Intangible personal property generally is exempt from the BTPP tax. Section 58.1-1101 of the Virginia Code classifies certain…
The Oregon Tax Court issued its opinion in Powerex v. Dep’t of Revenue, TC 4800 (Or. Tax Ct., Sept. 17, 2012), holding that sales of electricity are sales of other than tangible personal property for Oregon apportionment purposes. The taxpayer sold both electricity and natural gas at wholesale with contractual points of delivery in…
In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court holding that E I Du Pont de Nemours (DuPont) was not unitary with its subsidiary, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company (DPC). E I Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Dkt. No. 304758 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (unpublished). Because the two businesses were…
