State and Local Tax Attorney

Published on: April 10, 2017

NJ Reconsiders and Ultimately Taxes IT Support Company

Earlier in 2017, Premier Netcomm Solutions LLC (“Premier”) lost on reconsideration in New Jersey tax court. The case dealt with the taxability of software as a service (“SaaS”) dating back to an audit from 2004 through 2005. After initially beating for state, the court overturned a prior decision on reconsideration, which ultimately upheld New Jersey’s tax assessment.

Premier seems to be a classic IT provider in that it provides services such as network supports, internet access, consulting and design of IT and telephone projects, trouble shooting, remote training, data back-up, and network monitoring for businesses. In the original decision, the court sided with Premier that its sales were not subject to sales tax. The court concluded that prior to 2005, sales of services related to prewritten software were not taxable. In so doing the court invalidated New Jerseys tax assessment against Premier.

Unhappy with the decision, New Jersey’s Division of Taxation sought reconsideration, which is very difficult to prevail on. The Court seemed to grant reconsideration because the original case erred fundamentally on its analysis. Primarily, the court originally believed the law did not tax such services until its 2005 amendment. However, the amendment was really based on New Jersey’s membership into the Streamline Sales and Use Tax Agreement (“SSUTA”) in 2005, which required it to adopt a uniform definition. Therefore, based on a 2004 Bulletin, the court reconsidered the case and ruled that the services were and have been subject to tax since 2004.

Published on: March 13, 2017

Pain the SaaS: Navigating Sales Tax on Cloud Computing

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

Over the past several years software as a service (“SaaS”) has been a booming industry. Pioneers in the cloud computing industry, like Salesforce, have developed web based applications that offer a wide range of services to the user. Driven by competitors such as Microsoft, Adobe, Sap, ADP, Oracle, IBM, Intuit and Google, the SaaS industry has become a $204 billion industry and grown by more than 16% last year.

Traditionally, from a sales tax perspective, states tax the sale of tangible personal property but not services. While many states adhere to that mantra, several states have moved towards taxing software despite being intangible in nature. Still, it can be difficult to determine whether SaaS is more like a software, which may be taxable, or if it feels more like a service provided, which is not taxable in many states.

States have been consistently inconsistent across the country in determining whether to tax SaaS. States often have similar statutes and reach completely different conclusions in their quest to analyze SaaS. Further, many situations occur in which a state can treat two seemingly similar SaaS companies differently within their own state. In an attempt to comply, companies often struggle with charging the appropriate sales tax in the correct state and/or their state income tax obligations, with respect to SaaS.

Published on: August 28, 2016

Washington Finds Nexus in Advertising

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

If states could impose tax on every company that makes a sale within its borders, they would. Luckily, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution requires something known as “nexus,” or a connection, between a company and state in order for that company to be subject to state and local taxes. The standards for nexus can be ambiguous, particularly in recent years as a result of the radical changes to traditional business models that have occurred with the internet.

While nexus may seem easy to determine using the physical presence test, the definition of physical presence has in fact been something that courts across the country have struggled with since the beginning. That struggle has only become increasingly complicated with the internet and virtual marketplaces that no longer require a company to open a brick and mortar shop everywhere it wants to sell its products.

Recently, Washington state has found nexus with a company that made wholesale sales through infomercials. This particular company sent employees to Washington to participate in trade shows and other promotional events. However, they did not have a physical business location within the state.

Published on: August 21, 2016

Hawaii Clarifies Taxes for Online Travel Companies

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

Hawaii was the most recent in a line of states to take a stance in the long tax battle between online travel companies, such as Priceline, Expedia and Orbitz, and states over what is commonly referred to as “tourist development taxes,” or “bed taxes.” Over the last couple of years, states have fallen on both sides of the issue of whether hotel rooms are taxable at the price a hotel receives for a room or the price that an online travel company sells a room. The Hawaii case, Travelocity.com, L.P. v. Hawaii Director of Taxation, involves two taxes, the first of which is called a “GET” or “general excise tax,” and the second of which is called a “TAT” or “transient accommodations tax.”

The 2015 court decision has been clarified this month in an announcement by the state that online travel companies were in fact liable for the “GET,” along with any penalties for late payment, on their portion of the sale price for hotel rooms located in Hawaii. However, online travel companies are not liable for the “TAT.” This is similar to states like Florida, in which the amount the online travel company receives for the rental of a room within Florida is not subject to local tourist taxes.

The state reasoned that the portion of the sale that online travel companies receive is in fact for “occupancy rights” that are used in their entirety within the state of Hawaii when the sale is for a room within the state. Under that reasoning, the state determined that the revenue made by the online travel companies is subject to Hawaii state tax.

Published on: April 4, 2016

OTC’s On the Hook for Bed Tax in Maryland

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

State and local governments are continually searching for ways to increase revenue through taxation of online companies conducting business within their state or county. One such way is by assessing a rental tax against online travel companies (“OTCs”).

OTCs typically facilitate the rental of a hotel room for vacationers and charge a fee for their services. OTCs play a significant role in the hotel rental business by providing consumers with a variety of choices based on price, location, and other factors. OTCs also provide benefits to hotels through promotion and advertising, and providing the ability for vacationers to rent a room at a lower price. Further, OTCs increase hotel occupancy rates and promote tourism thereby creating revenue for state and counties.
Continue reading

Published on: November 24, 2015

Class Action Takes on Pizza Delivery Fee in Florida

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

Few understand or even bring up sales tax issues when they order pizza. The next time you order pizza, take a look at the receipt and see if the pizza shop charges you for the delivery. Taking it a step further, what happens if you purchase an item and pay for shipping charges? Is tax due on just the item, or is it also due on the delivery charge as well? The answer depends largely on whether the delivery charge is separately stated and if it is optional. This issue will be in center stage for a recent class action filed in Broward County against Pizza Hut.

Lauren Minniti, the class representative, purchased a pizza from Pizza Hut and had it delivered. Pizza Hut allegedly charged her tax based on the charge for the pizza and for the separately stated delivery fee instead of tax on the pizza alone. Was this correct?
Continue reading

Published on: November 19, 2015

Micjo – Florida’s Defining Moment in Florida OTP Tax History

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

February 1, 2012 was a day in tobacco tax litigation that should go down as one of the greatest victories in tobacco tax history. On appeal from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”), Judge Black for the District Court of Appeal of Florida – Second District (“DCA”) stated that the term “wholesale sales price” is based only on the manufacturer’s price of the tobacco product and not the domestic distributor’s invoice price. This seemingly simple statement has now become the source of very successful tobacco tax distributor litigation in Florida and throughout the country. Micjo, Inc. v. DBPR has set the tone for all future tobacco tax litigation.

In a case of first impression, the DCA was called upon to interpret the phrase “wholesale sales price” within the Florida statutes on Other Tobacco Products (“OTP”). See section 210.25(13), Florida Statutes (2009). The facts of the case were far from complicated as Micjo was a tobacco tax distributor that imported and distributed hookah tobacco. Since Micjo was a Florida distributor, it was subject to Florida’s OTP tax. Micjo received its tobacco from domestic distributors and only paid taxes on the actual unit price of the tobacco and not the total invoice price. This is particularly relevant and ultimately the crux of the entire case, because the total invoice price would have included, among other things, federal excise tax and shipping costs. As such, an audit conducted by DBPR concluded that Micjo underpaid Florida OTP by roughly $48,000. Micjo then requested a formal administrative hearing on the calculation of tax.

Not so shockingly, DBPR concluded in its own hearing that it was correct in its audit result. The recommended order stated that “the [wholesale sales price] includes delivery charges and the federal excise taxes. It is all components on the invoice that make up the cost to get the product to the purchaser[;] therefore, all components are subject to be taxed.” Clearly, a different result would have cost DBPR potentially millions of dollars in future tax revenue, so why would it have concluded any other result. After having its exceptions to the recommended order be denied, Micjo filed an appeal for the record books.

Published on: March 31, 2015

What’s the True Object of the Transaction? Portable Toilets Case Finds Its Way to LA Supreme Court

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

It never ceases to amaze me, the wide variety of companies that state agencies attempt to extort money from. I mean, how could a portable toilet company possibly have a sales tax problem? Most states impose a sales tax on the sale or rental of tangible personal property, but do not tax services. From the perspective of a toilet industry, if a venue rents a toilet, it is clearly a rental of tangible personal property subject to tax. If the same venue pays a fee to clean the toilets, then it sounds like a nontaxable service. But what happens when the venue rents the toilet and purchases the cleaning service along with it? In this part tangible personal property rental, part service transaction (known to the sales and use tax attorney as a “mixed transaction”), is only part of the transaction taxable or is the entire charge subject to sales tax? Many states take the incredibly helpful “it depends” approach, and look to an even more helpful “object of the transaction” test. In reality, it truly seems like state agencies and courts reach a conclusion first and fill in the reasons later.
Continue reading

Published on: September 24, 2014

DON’T MESS WITH THE SEMINOLES – INDIANS WIN SALES TAX CASE IN FLORIDA

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

As a Florida state and local tax attorney I live in the world of strange. Few attorneys or tax professionals are even aware of our peculiar area of the law. Even fewer attorneys or tax professionals have heard of, let alone practiced in the even stranger area of Native American Taxation. During my travels and while earning my LL.M. at NYU, I was one of the few fortunate souls to be exposed to this spin off of state and local tax. In fact, there are only two courses offered in the United States at the LL.M. level on this subject. Native American Taxation is poorly developed, the rules are unclear, and the cases make no sense whatsoever. While this is common for Florida attorneys like me who live in a world with no clear answers, living in this gray area of the law is uncomfortable for most lawyers and professionals.

From a legal perspective, a state’s ability to tax tribal activities turns on 1) whom is being taxed, Indian vs. Non-Indian and 2) where the transaction is taking place, on vs. off the reservation. One of the primitive cases, Utah Railroad, from 1885, stands for the idea that a state’s power to tax is at its weakest if the tax is imposed on a reservation and the burden falls on a member of a tribe. For example, Mescalero says that ad-valorem tax (property tax) cannot be imposed by a state for real estate located on a reservation. Similarly, a case called McClanahan holds that a state cannot tax a Native American’s income if it is derived from within the reservation’s borders. If sales are wholly made to Indians on the reservation then a state cannot impose its sales tax on those transactions. Warren trading.
Continue reading

Published on: October 4, 2013

States Offer Amnesty In Attempt to Collect Tax

By Jerry Donnini, Esq.

Each year, many states announce amnesty programs in an effort to incentivize taxpayers to pay state tax. Most programs, in one form or another, offer partial or full interest and penalty abatements if taxpayers pay back taxes owed. While the programs seem like a win for states in theory, as a state and local tax attorney, I can promise that such programs lead to problems. Auditors in the various states are told to close down improperly completed audits in an effort to get taxpayers in the amnesty program. This, in turn, leads to poorly conducted audits that must be protested and litigated. In short, state and local tax professionals in those states should be licking their chops for the bombardment of work that will likely ensue.

The most recent states to implement a version of an amnesty program are Arkansas, Connecticut, and Louisiana.

Arkansas’ amnesty program applies to franchise taxes and runs from September 1st through December 31st, 2013. In order to participate, taxpayers must submit all reports and forms and pay the computed tax to the state. If a taxpayer meets the requirement of the deal, then Arkansas will waive all interest and penalties for delinquent taxpayers.