On August 31, 2022, the California Office of Tax Appeals (“OTA”), in the Matter of the Appeal of B. Housman and B. Pena, held that an Australian software company holder, Housman, and his wife are California residents and Housman is entitled to a stepped-up basis as a result of a valid check-the-box election to be
taxability
Utah State Tax Commission to clarify rule on taxation of custom software
On October 15, 2022, the Utah State Tax Commission published a proposed amendment to its rule governing the taxation of custom software for sales and use tax purposes, clarifying that the sale, rental or lease of custom computer software constitutes a sale of personal services that is not subject to tax, regardless of the form…
New York State Division of Tax Appeals rules company’s services are nontaxable information services
On September 29, 2022, the New York State Division of Tax Appeals determined that services involving the creation of customer engagement reports based on email tracking and email template usage data are nontaxable information services—particularly when use of software is only incidental to the performance of such services. The taxpayer sold “customer engagement services” to…
Blame the manager: Company that arranges, manages brand displays is a retailer for Washington B&O and retail sales tax purposes
On April 25, the Washington Court of Appeals held that a company that arranges and manages displays for installation and placement in multiple retail brands’ stores through subcontractors was subject to the state’s retailing business and occupation tax (the “B&O tax”) and retail sales tax as a retailer making retail sales, rather than a provider…
At California State Court, streaming video providers notch another video service provider fee win
On September 20th, the Los Angeles County Superior Court held that local video service provider fees do not apply to streaming video providers. This decision is consistent with a prior decision by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which held that streaming video providers were not subject to Nevada localities’ franchise…
Nevada Federal Court concludes streaming video providers not subject to local franchise fees
On September 3, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that streaming video providers were not subject to Nevada localities’ franchise fees. The city of Reno filed a class action lawsuit against two streaming video providers, claiming that they were required to register as video service providers (i.e., obtain a…
Washington issues guidance on taxability of online classes
The Washington Department of Revenue recently released informal guidance regarding the taxability of online instructional classes. The guidance states that live classes where participants can interact in real-time with the presenter are not subject to sales tax; however, pre-recorded videos and classes are subject to sales tax. This distinction focuses on the live ability to…
Beyond use tax – Michigan court holds retailer not subject to use tax on advertising materials mailed to in-state residents
On July 8, 2021, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision holding that a retailer was not subject to use tax on advertising materials mailed to Michigan residents. The retailer designed the materials in-house and had them printed by a third-party printer, outside of Michigan. After printing, the retailer sent the materials to a…
Chicago Weighs In on Wayfair Nexus, Permits Limited Safe Harbor
In response to numerous inquiries, the Chicago Departments of Finance and Law issued an Information Bulletin on their application of nexus to Chicago taxes in light of Wayfair v. South Dakota, 585 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018). Illinois has adopted an economic nexus standard by which out-of-state retailers making sales of tangible…
Sensing a Trend? Maine Tax Assessor Argues Sales Tax “Sale Price” of iPhones More Than What They Sold For
After losing at trial, the Maine State Tax Assessor is now arguing to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court that sales tax applies to carrier subsidies received by Apple on its sales of iPhones bundled with service contracts. During the years in issue, Apple sold iPhones to its customers at a reduced price when the customers…