Articles Tagged with “Tampa Sales Tax Attorney”

Published on:

By

In just another case where the Department of Business and Profession Regulation (“DBPR”) attempts to be larger than the law, a Recommended Order was issued on May 29th, 2015, stopping DBPR in its tracks. In Thompson Cigars, Case No: 14-3471, Judge Alexander agreed with the taxpayer, that DBPR’s inspection authority is not as broad as it thought it was. However shocking it may be to DBPR, Judge Alexander agreed with the taxpayer on both counts raised in this case. The Administrative Complaint, filed by DBPR, alleges that Thompson Cigars, Respondent: (a) failed to produce records of tobacco products sold to persons or business entities in the State of Idaho, and (b) failed to submit a sworn application reflecting that two individuals, not previously disclosed, had a direct or indirect financial interest in the business.
Continue reading

Published on:

By

Over the past few years, we have been intricately involved in ongoing litigation with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (“ABT”). There still remains ongoing litigation in connection with the Micjo issue. Micjo dealt with whether non-tobacco charges, such as federal excise tax and shipping charges, are subject to Florida Other Tobacco Products Tax and the Surcharge on Other Tobacco Products (“OTP Tax”). Down another path there is current litigation in Brandy’s, which deals with cigar wraps, or blunt wraps, which are subject to Florida’s OTP Tax. Recently, however, another case was filed in late 2014 that has a far broader reach than any other case filed to date.
Continue reading

Published on:

By

Over the past few years, taxpayers throughout Florida have been in a never ending battle with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (“ABT”). At the forefront is the Micjo issue. Micjo was a case that determined that Florida wholesale tobacco tax should not apply to the full invoice. Rather, the 85% should only apply to the tobacco while charges and items such as federal excise tax and shipping should not be included in the taxable base. There are 8 pending cases throughout Florida being litigated on this issue. In addition, there are two cases in which the taxpayer has argued that blunt wraps, or cigar wraps, are not included in the tobacco products definition and, are therefore, not taxable. In Brandy’s, a taxpayer received a favorable ALJ opinion spelling out the same.

In response, ABT has attempted to change Florida law. Specifically in Senate Bill 7074, ABT is attempting to fix the Micjo opinion and change the taxable base to include the full price paid by the distributor, including the federal excise tax. The amended law will read as follows:

“Wholesale sales price” means the sum of paragraphs (a) and (b): (a) The full price paid by the distributor to acquire the tobacco products, including charges by the seller for the cost of materials, cost of labor and service, charge for transportation and delivery, the federal excise tax, and any other charges, even if the charge is listed as a separate item on the invoice paid by the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor, exclusive of any diminution by volume or other discounts, including discount provided to a distributor by an affiliate. (b) The federal excise tax paid by the distributor on the tobacco products, if the tax is not included in the full price under paragraph (a).

Continue reading
Published on:

By

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has had its hands full with tax cases this year. Although largely unpopular and unexciting for the general public, SCOTUS find tax cases even less appealing. In fact, since 1992 in Quill, SCOTUS has not heard a case dealing with sales tax nexus. Despite its unpopularity, the nexus issue is an important one since the advent of the Internet. However, every statistic has its anomaly. From a state tax perspective, SCOTUS issued two opinions in 2 days, which is impossible. The first case, the DMAcase came down yesterday, March 3, 2015, ruling that a taxpayer could embark on a constitutional challenge to a state tax in federal court. Even more riveting, SCOTUS ruled today, March 4, 2015, in theCSX case.

By way of brief background, federal law prohibits states from imposing taxes that “discriminate against rail carriers.” With that in mind, Alabama decided to impose a 4% tax on diesel fuel purchases made by a rail carrier and exempt similar purchases made by other competitors, namely motor and water carriers. However, motor carriers pay 19 cents per gallon of fuel tax on diesel purchases and water carriers don’t pay tax on diesel fuel purchases. Is this the type of discrimination the feds were talking about? Does anyone really care?
Continue reading

Published on:

By

Direct Marketing Association has continued its fight for consumer privacy with Colorado. In September, 2014, I wrote about how DMA has taken its challenge up to the Supreme Court of the United States. DMA filed its opening DMA Brief.pdfin the Supreme Court of the United States on September 9, 2014 and argued that the case should be allowed to be heard in federal court. A summary can be found DMA Summary.pdf. The Supreme Court heard the case in its recent term and announced its opinion on March 3, 2015. From a state and local tax perspective, the case has broad and interesting constitutional issues.

At its heart, Colorado thought it would effective to enact a law that affected “non-collecting retailer.” In Colorado’s eyes, if a company made sales in Colorado over $100,000, then it was subject to a host of regulation, including: provide notices to Colorado purchasers, send annual purchase summaries to the customers and send the report to Colorado. This all had to be done despite the fact the company had no nexus, or connection, with Colorado. DMA, agroup of businesses and organizations that markets products using advertisements, thought this was incredibly onerous and unfair, so it challenged the Colorado law in federal court. At trial, the DMA convinced the trial court that this law was impermissible because it convinced a judge that the law discriminated against, and placed an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Continue reading

Published on:

By

For the past few years, I have been writing a number of blogs and articles recently discussing the Department of Business and Professional Regulation here in Florida and its potentially unfair audit tactics. Many of you have seen cigar wrappers, or the more scientifically described “blunt wraps,” at convenience stores and gas stations throughout the state and country. Are those items tobacco products subject to Florida’s other tobacco products tax? On January 9, 2015, our first case went to hearing on the taxability of blunt wraps in Brandy’s – Amen Complaint.pdf
Continue reading

Published on:

By

Most states attempt to encourage manufacturers to set up a business in their state. Manufacturers typically provide numerous benefits to a state’s economy such as job creation. One of the carrots typically used by a state is to offer sales and use tax incentive for a manufacturing company. In almost every state with a sales and use tax, machinery and equipment purchased for use in the manufacturing process is exempt from tax. What if a glass manufacturer purchased chemicals, such as nitrogen and hydrogen for use in its glass manufacturing process? Would that be a tax exempt purchase of equipment?
Continue reading

Published on:

By

Although nexus sounds like a terrible disease, it is just a fancy word meaning a connection or link. If a company has enough of a connection or link to a state, then the state can impose its power of the company. With nexus, a state can impose its laws on the business including sales tax laws. From a sales tax perspective it can require the business to charge, collect, and remit state taxes such as sales tax. In 1992, Quill v. North Dakota was decided, which announced that having a physical presence in a state was sufficient nexus to require a company to follow a state’s state and local tax laws. In other words if your business has an office, a warehouse, some inventory, or a person (employee and yes, an independent contractor) then it likely has nexus under the physical presence test in Quill.

For life in the 1990’s this was big news to businesses who engaged in innovative marketing. Businesses that were on the cutting edge that sent things like mail order catalogs and floppy disks to solicit customers were being harassed by states alleging they had nexus. Today, with the internet as the backbone to the modern economy, states are trying the same tactics by creating laws to get more companies under its rule.

In 2008, New York led the innovative charge for click through nexus legislation. Also known as the “Amazon law,” due to its perceived targeting of Amazon, New York created a law that if a New York residents website generated over a certain number of sales in a 12 month period for a particular company, then there was a presumption that such company had nexus in New York. Amazon and Overstock took exception with this law, but ultimately lost at New York’s highest court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case.
Continue reading

Published on:

By

In order to limit liability, many tax professionals and attorneys offer simple advice to their business clients who also own real estate. In order to avoid exposure to valuable real estate, many business owners are advised to segregate the risky business operations into its own legal entity separate from the real estate. While it may be worthwhile from a business liability standpoint, it is often a recipe for disaster for Florida sales tax purposes.

Florida is the only state that taxes commercial rent. In fact, many tax professionals take it a step further. Man times, for federal tax and cash flow purposes, attorneys set up a lease between the real estate entity and the business entity, often equal to the mortgage, insurance, and property tax costs. In other situations, and often with no formal lease in place, the corporate attorney will just have the business entity pay the mortgage, property insurance, and real estate taxes directly on behalf of the real estate company. Whether there is a lease, or if the tenant company pays the expenses directly, or even if the companies are related then Florida sales tax still applies. Below are 4 simple rules to keep in mind when it comes to Florida sales tax on commercial rent Continue reading

Published on:

By

In early 2014 I wrote an article that explores a way in which many state and local tax “SALT” professionals advise their clients to save on state and local tax. The issue is a common one for real property improvement contractors. Specifically companies that sell real property improvements to governments or other tax exempt entities, there is a real incentive to save on high sales tax rates. What if instead of selling a real property improvement, the company separated itself into two separate legal entities. Company 1 could sell tangible personal property, tax free, to the tax exempt entity/governmental entity. Company 2 could install the tangible personal property tax free because they are only providing a service. Assuming both companies had separate contracts, the entire transaction would escape sales and use tax in most states. Conversely, if a single company purchased materials and used them in a real property improvement, then it would owe tax on all of its purchases. This savings is often substantial.
Continue reading

Contact Information
100 W Cypress Creek Rd #930
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
8875 Hidden River Pkwy #300
Tampa, FL 33637

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Jerry Donnini, Esq.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design