[PPT] - After the Amazon Ruling Mastering the New Demands of Sales Tax PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Sales Tax Affiliate and Click-Through Nexus: After the Amazon Ruling

Mastering the New Demands of Sales Tax Compliance for Multi-State Companies

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014

Presenting a live 110-minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Pat Derdenger, Tax Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, Phoenix Arthur Rosen, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery, New York

SLIDE 2

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

f your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-873-1442 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

SLIDE 3

Attendees must listen throughout the program, including the Q & A session, in

rder to qualify for full continuing education credits. Strafford is required to

monitor attendance. Record verification codes presented throughout the seminar. If you have not printed out the “Official Record of Attendance,” please print it now (see “Handouts” tab in “Conference Materials” box on left-hand side of your computer screen). To earn Continuing Education credits, you must write down the verification codes in the corresponding spaces found on the Official Record of Attendance form. Please refer to the instructions emailed to the registrant for additional

information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

SLIDE 4

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides and the Official Record of Attendance for today's program.

Double-click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

SLIDE 5

Sales Tax Affiliate and Click-Through Nexus: After the Amazon Ruling

Jan. 30, 2014

Pat Derdenger, Steptoe & Johnson pderdenger@steptoe.com Arthur Rosen, McDermott Will & Emery arosen@mwe.com

SLIDE 6

Today’s Program

Recent Developments and Background [Arthur Rosen] Practical Compliance Concerns [Pat Derdenger] Slide 8 – Slide 57 Slide 58 – Slide 84

SLIDE 7

Notice

ANY TAX ADVICE IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE SPEAKERS’ FIRMS TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY A CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON ANY TAXPAYER OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.

You (and your employees, representatives, or agents) may disclose to any and all persons, without limitation, the tax treatment or tax structure, or both, of any transaction described in the associated materials we provide to you, including, but not limited to, any tax opinions, memoranda, or other tax analyses contained in those materials. The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.

SLIDE 8

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND BACKGROUND

Arthur Rosen, McDermott Will & Emery

SLIDE 9

Agenda

I. Recent Developments II. Background III. Income Tax Implications IV. Other Aspects of State Actions A. Amazon Tax Collection Deals B. VDA Offers C. Other Concerns

9

SLIDE 10

Agenda

I. Recent Developments II. Background III. Income Tax Implications IV. Other Aspects of State Actions A. Amazon Tax Collection Deals B. VDA Offers C. Other Concerns

10

SLIDE 11

Recent Developments – Click-Through Nexus

Click-Through Nexus Laws

Legend

Nexus without statute Legislation under consideration Nexus legislation passed Legislation considered but not passed or passed then vetoed Other (incl. notification requirement)

Oregon MD CT CT NH NH VT Pennsylvania

W. VA

Michigan

Miss. Alabama

Oregon Nevada Utah Minnesota Iowa Indiana Ohio Del.

N. J.

CT

Mass.

Vt. PA New York

W. Va.

Missouri Louisiana Wisconsin Illinois* Michigan

Miss. Alabama Georgia

Florida TN

S. Carolina
N. Carolina

Virginia Kentucky Wyoming Colorado North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Arizona New Mexico California Idaho Montana Maine R.I. Arkansas Hawaii Alaska D.C.

M.D.

Washington

No state sales or use tax

*The Illinois Supreme Court has recently struck down the state’s click-through nexus law.

11

SLIDE 12

Recent Developments – Click-Through Nexus

State te Effecti ctive Date te Affiliate te Thresh shold Statu tute te

Arkans ansas as (rebut uttab able presumpt umption)

n)
Oct. 24, 2011

More than $10,000

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-117

Califor forni nia a (rebut uttab able presum umption

n)
Sept. 15, 2012.

More than $10,000 and (and more than $1,000,000 in annual in-state sales whether a result of click-through referrals or otherwise)

Cal. Rev. & Tax. § 6203(c)(5)

Conne nnecticut ut (irrebut uttab able presum umption

n)

July 1, 2011 More than $2,000

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-407(a)(12)(L)

Georgia a (rebut buttab table presu sumpt ption)

n)
Oct. 1, 2012

More than $50,000

Ga. Stat. Ann. § 48-8-2(8)(M)

Illinois

is (irrebuttab

able presumption)

n)

July 1, 2011 More than $10,000 35 ILCS §§ 105/2 and 110/2 Kans nsas as (rebut uttab able presum umption)

n)
Oct. 1, 2013

More than $10,000

Kan. Stat § 79-3702(h)(2)(C)

Maine (rebut uttab able presum umption

n)
Oct. 9, 2013

More than $10,000

Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1754-B(1-A)(C)

Minnesot

ta

a (rebut uttab able presumption)

n)

July 1, 2013 More than $10,000

Minn. Stat. § 297A.66, Subd. 4a

Missou

uri (rebut

uttab able presumption)

n)
Aug. 28, 2013

More than $10,000

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 144.605(2)(e)

New York (rebut uttab table presu sumpt ption)

n)

June 1, 2008 More than $10,000 N.Y. Tax Law § 1101(b)(8)(vi) North h Carol

lina

na (rebut uttab able presum umption)

n)
Aug. 7, 2009

More than $10,000 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-164.8 Rhod

de Island

and (rebut uttab able presum umption)

n)

July 1, 2009 More than $5,000 R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-18-15 Vermont mont (rebut uttable presumpt umption)

n)

When adopted in 15 other states. More than $10,000

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9701(9)(I)

(H.B. 436)

The Pennsylvania DOR requires remote sellers to collect sales and use tax. Pa. Sales and Use Tax Bulletin 2011-01 (Dec. 1, 2011)

12

SLIDE 13

Recent Developments – Click-Through Nexus

I. Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 20 N.Y .3d 586 (N.Y . 2013) A. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the New York Amazon Law as facially constitutional. B. The Court found that although physical presence is generally necessary for sales tax nexus, it need not be substantial, and can be met if economic activities are performed in the state by a seller on behalf of the taxpayer. C. “Active, in-state solicitation that produces a significant amount of revenue qualifies as ‘demonstrably more than a slightest presence . . . . The bottom line is that if a vendor is paying New York residents to actively solicit business in this State, there is no reason why that vendor should not shoulder the appropriate tax burden.’” D. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 2, 2013.

13

SLIDE 14

Recent Developments – Click-Through Nexus

I. Performance Marketing Ass’n v. Hamer, No. 114496 (Ill. S. Ct.

Oct. 18, 2013).

A. “In short, under the Act, performance marketing over the Internet provides the basis for imposing a use tax collection obligation on an out-of-state retailer when a threshold of $10,000 in sales through the clickable link is reached. However, national, or international, performance marketing by an out-of-state retailer which appears in print or on over-the-air broadcasting in Illinois, and which reaches the same dollar threshold, will not trigger an Illinois use tax collection obligation. B. “The relevant provisions of the Act therefore impose a discriminatory tax on electronic commerce within the meaning of the ITFA.” C. Commerce clause challenge not reached.

14

SLIDE 15

Recent Developments – Use Tax Notice Requirements

I. Colorado A.

Colo. Rev. Stat.

39-21-112(3.5)(d) II. Kentucky A.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.

139.450 III. Oklahoma A. 68 Okla. Stat. 1406.1 IV. South Carolina A. S.C. Code Ann. 12-36-2691(E), -2692 V. South Dakota A. S.D. Codified Laws 10-63-2

15

SLIDE 16

Recent Developments – Use Tax Notice Requirements

I. Colorado A. Retailers that do not collect Colorado sales and use tax are required to send notification to all of their Colorado purchasers by January 31 of each year showing the total amount paid by the purchaser for Colorado purchases made from the retailer in the previous calendar year. The notification must state that Colorado requires a sales or use tax return to be filed and sales or use tax paid on certain Colorado purchases made by the purchaser from the retailer. B. Such retailers must also file an annual statement for each purchaser with the Colorado Department of Revenue showing the total amount paid for Colorado purchases of such purchasers during the preceding calendar year. C. Failure to send the notification or file the annual statement will result in a penalty

f $10 for each such failure, unless the retailer shows reasonable cause for such

failure.

16

SLIDE 17

Recent Developments – Use Tax Notice Requirements

I. Kentucky A. Retailers not required to collect Kentucky sales and use tax that make total gross sales of $100,000 or more to Kentucky residents or businesses located in Kentucky must notify the purchaser that the purchaser is required to report and pay the Kentucky use tax directly to the Department of Revenue. II. Oklahoma A. Retailers not required to collect Oklahoma sales and use tax must provide notification to its customers that use tax is imposed and must be paid by the purchaser, unless otherwise exempt, on the storage, use, or other consumption of the tangible personal property in this state. III. South Carolina A. Certain people owning distribution facilities and making specified capital investments in the state who make sales through their websites must notify a purchaser in a confirmation email that the purchaser may owe South Carolina use tax on the total sales price of the transaction and include in the email an Internet link to the South Carolina Department of Revenue’s website that allows the purchaser to pay the use tax. B. Such people must also notify South Carolina purchasers of their potential use tax obligations on their invoices. C. Such people must also, by February first of each year, provide to each purchaser to whom tangible goods were delivered in the state a statement of the total sales made to the purchaser during the preceding calendar year. IV. South Dakota A. Retailers not required to collect South Dakota sales and use tax must give notice that use tax is due on nonexempt purchases of tangible personal property, services, or products transferred electronically and must be paid by the South Dakota purchaser. 17

SLIDE 18

Recent Developments – Use Tax Notice Requirements

I. Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, Dkt. No. 12-01175 (10th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013) A. In May 2012, Colorado appealed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado striking down as unconstitutional a reporting requirement imposed on out-of-state vendors that do not collect and remit state sales and use taxes. B. The federal appellate court declined to rule on the merits of the Association’s Commerce Clause claims against Colorado, saying the Tax Injunction Act deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin the state’s tax collection efforts. C. The DMA will file in Colorado state court.

18

SLIDE 19

Recent Developments – Federal Legislation

I. Marketplace Fairness Act [S. 743] [113th Congress]

A. Introduced: April 16, 2013. B. Passed by the Senate: May 6, 2013. C. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law : June 14, 2013. D. This bill provides a state two options for gaining the Congressional authorization to require remote sellers to collect sales tax:

1. SSUTA member states have to provide 90 days notice that they will exercise authority under the Act; 2. Non-SSUTA members may exercise authority by complying with the minimum simplification requirements under the Act by enacting legislation that (1) specifies the taxes to which the authority applies; and (2) identifies products and services that will be excluded from the authority.

E. The MFA only applies to remote sales and remote sellers.

19

SLIDE 20

Recent Developments – Federal Legislation

I. Marketplace Fairness Act [S. 743] [113th Congress]

A. Chairman Goodlatte’s Principles:

1. Tax Relief – Using the Internet should not create new or discriminatory taxes not faced in the offline world. Nor should any fresh precedent be created for

ther areas of interstate taxation by States.

2. Tech Neutrality – Brick & Mortar, Exclusively Online, and Brick & Click businesses should all be on equal footing. The sales tax compliance burden on online Internet sellers should not be less, but neither should it be greater than that on similarly situated offline businesses. 3. No Regulation Without Representation – Those who would bear state taxation, regulation and compliance burdens should have direct recourse to protest unfair, unwise or discriminatory rates and enforcement. 4. Simplicity – Governments should not stifle businesses by shifting onerous compliance requirements onto them; laws should be so simple and compliance so inexpensive and reliable as to render a small business exemption unnecessary. 5. Tax Competition – Governments should be encouraged to compete with one another to keep tax rates low and American businesses should not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis their foreign competitors. 6. States' Rights – States should be sovereign within their physical boundaries. In addition, the federal government should not mandate that States impose any sales tax compliance burdens. 7. Privacy Rights – Sensitive customer data must be protected.

20

SLIDE 21

Slide Intentionally Left Blank

SLIDE 22

Agenda

I. Recent Developments II. Background III. Income Tax Implications IV. Other Aspects of State Actions A. Amazon Tax Collection Deals B. VDA Offers C. Other Concerns

22

SLIDE 23

Nexus Analytical Framework

Nexus with the Transaction Due Process Part of Unitary Business Commerce Clause Substantial Nexus Nexus with the Person Due Process Minimum Nexus Minimum Contacts/Purposeful Availment Commerce Clause Substantial Nexus Sales and Use Taxes Physical Presence Other Taxes ???

23

SLIDE 24

Due Process Clause

I. Due Process Clause & Taxpayer’s Right—U.S.
Const. amend. XIV,

1

A. “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” B. Similar to the U.S. Const. amend. V

24

SLIDE 25

Due Process Clause Nexus with the Transaction

I. Allied Signal v. Dir., Div. of Tax., 504 U.S. 768

(1992)

A. “. . . there must be a connection to the activity itself [nexus with the transaction], rather than a connection only to the actor the State seeks to tax [nexus with the person] . . . . The constitutional question in a case such as Quill

Corp. is whether the State has the authority to tax the corporation at all [nexus

with the person].”

II. MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dep’t of

Revenue, 553 U.S. 16 (2008)

A. “. . . apportionment [can] permissibly be applied to a multistate business lacking the ‘physical unity’ of wires or rails but exhibiting the ‘same unity in the use of the entire property for the specific purpose,’ with ‘the same elements of value arising from such use.’” B. “The conclusion that the asset served an operational function was merely instrumental to the constitutionally relevant conclusion that the asset was a unitary part of the business being conducted in the taxing State rather than a discrete asset to which the State had no claim.”

25

SLIDE 26

Due Process Clause Nexus with the Person

I. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462

(1985)

A. “The connection to a state that is necessary to support in personam jurisdiction is purposeful direction of activities into state.”

II. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S.

298 (1992)

A. “The connection to a state that is needed to support tax jurisdiction is comparable to that need to support general in personam jurisdiction.”

26

SLIDE 27

Due Process Clause Nexus with the Person

I. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.

Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)

A. The requisite contacts with a state must come as a result of defendant’s (i.e., taxpayer’s) own activities.

27

SLIDE 28

Due Process Clause Nexus with the Person

I. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011)

A. “[Defendant’s] attenuated connections to the state fall far short of the “the continuous and systematic general business contacts” necessary to empower [the state] to entertain suit against them on claims unrelated to anything that connects them to the state.”

II.

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780 (2011)

A. “As a general rule, the exercise of judicial power is not lawful unless the defendant ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). … [T]he general rule is applicable in this products-liability case, and the so-called ‘stream-of- commerce” doctrine cannot displace it.”

III. Daimler AG v. Bauman, Dkt. No. 11-965 (U.S. Jan 14, 2014)

A. “[O]nly a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there. . . . Accordingly, the inquiry under Goodyear is not whether a foreign corporation’s in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense ‘continuous and systematic,’ it is whether that corporation’s ‘affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.’”

28

SLIDE 29

Due Process Clause Nexus with the Person

I. Gordon v. Holder, 632 F .3d 722 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011), remanded to 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139201 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2011) A. “Although Quill did not deal with excise taxes, there remains an

pen question whether a national authorization of disparate state

levies on e-commerce renders concerns about presence and burden

bsolete.”

II. See also Red Earth LLC v. U.S., 728 F .Supp.2d 238 (W.D.N.Y . 2010), aff’d 657 F .3d 128 (2d Cir. 2011)

29

SLIDE 30

Commerce Clause Nexus Overview

I. U.S. Const., art. I,

8, cl. 3

A. “The Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” B. Has a direct and an implied aspect

1. Direct aspect comes from the language: “Congress shall

have the power”

2. Implied aspect (the “Negative/Dormant Commerce

Clause”) derives from a judicial interpretation that the CC “of its own force” limits state taxes where Congress has been silent.

30

SLIDE 31

Commerce Clause Nexus with the Transaction

I. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady,

430 U.S. 274 (1977)

A. The Court’s contemporary standard B. Tax on interstate commerce valid if:

1. Tax applied to an activity having a substantial nexus with the taxing state; 2. Is fairly apportioned; 3. Does not discriminate against interstate commerce; and, 4. Is fairly related to the services provided by the state.

31

SLIDE 32

Commerce Clause Nexus with the Transaction

I. Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989)

A. “We doubt that States through which the telephone call's electronic signals merely pass have a sufficient nexus to tax that

call. . . . We believe that only two States have a nexus substantial

enough to tax a consumer's purchase of an interstate telephone call.”

32

SLIDE 33

Commerce Clause Nexus with the Person

I. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S.

298 (1992)

A. For a state to have taxing jurisdiction over a person under dormant Commerce Clause principles, the person must have substantial nexus with the state, which for sales and use tax purposes, equates with physical presence in the state.

33

SLIDE 34

Attributional Nexus

I. When can another entity’s in-state activities create nexus for an out-of-state entity?

34

SLIDE 35

Attributional Nexus

I. Representative approach

A. Bloomingdale’s By Mail, Ltd. v. Commonwealth, 567

A.2d 773 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989) B. SFA Folio Collections, Inc. v. Bannon, 585 A.2d 666 (Conn. 1991)

II. Alter ego approach

A. Pearle Health Serv., Inc. v. Taylor, 799 S.W.2d 655

(Tenn. 1990)

III. Unitary/affiliate approach

A. Comptroller v. Armco Export Sales Corp., 572 A.2d 562

(Md. App. 1990) B. SYL, Inc. Comptroller of the Treasury, 825 A.2d 399 (Md. Ct. App. 2003)

C. California Assembly Bill 155
D. Alabama Admin. Code 810-6-2-.90.01 (effective Aug. 24,

2012)

35

SLIDE 36

Attributional Nexus Representative Approach

I. Scripto Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960)

A. “True, the ‘salesmen’ are not regular employees of appellant devoting full time to its service, but we conclude that such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as ‘independent’ neither results in changing his local function of solicitation . . .”

II. Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington Dep’t of

Rev., 482 U.S. 232 (1987)

A. The “crucial factor governing nexus” is whether the activities performed by the independent contractor on behalf of the out-of-state company are “significantly associated with the taxpayer’s ability to establish and maintain a market in [the] state for the sales.”

36

SLIDE 37

Attributional Nexus – Representative Approach

N.M. Taxation & Rev. Dep’t v. BarnesandNoble.com LLC, Docket No.

33,627 (N.M. S. Ct. 2013) ― Taxpayer, an online retailer with no physical presence in New Mexico, had substantial nexus with the state through the taxpayer’s sister corporation, which did have a physical presence in the state. ― The sister corporation: (1) Displayed the taxpayer’s website in its in-state retail stores, (2) shared the same trademark, and therefore brand loyalty, with the taxpayer, and (3) engaged in cross-marketing activities for the taxpayer’s benefit, all of which maintained the taxpayer’s market in New Mexico.

See also Haw. Letter Ruling 2012-10 (July 10, 2012) (The

establishment of a shopping rewards program and return policy with an affiliated retailer that maintains physical locations within Hawaii creates sufficient nexus for the general excise tax)

37

SLIDE 38

Attributional Nexus – Unitary/Affiliate Approach

Comptr. of the Treas. v. W.L. Gore, Nos. 1696, 1697 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., Jan.

24, 2013) ― The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that two subsidiaries of Gore,

ne holding its intangible assets and one holding its financial assets, had

royalty and loan interest income apportionable to Maryland based upon a unitary relationship with the parent company, which generated income in

Maryland. Nexus sufficient to justify taxation arises from the economic

reality that a parent's business in the taxing state produces a subsidiary's

income. The subsidiaries’ income was entirely the product of expenses

that the parent deducted in Maryland, so the subsidiaries’ income was earned in Maryland.

38

SLIDE 39

Slide Intentionally Left Blank

SLIDE 40

Agenda

I. Recent Developments II. Background III. Income Tax Implications IV. Other Aspects of State Actions A. Amazon Tax Collection Deals B. VDA Offers C. Other Concerns

40

SLIDE 41

Economic Nexus

I. Is physical presence necessary to create

taxable nexus for taxes other than sales and use taxes?

II. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298

(1992)

A. “Although we have not, in our review of other

types of taxes, articulated the same physical- presence requirement that Bellas Hess established for sales and use taxes, that silence does not imply repudiation of the Bellas Hess rule.”

41

SLIDE 42

Economic Nexus

I. Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm‘r., 437 S.E.2d 13 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 (1993)

A. “…by licensing intangibles for use in this state and

deriving income from their use here, Geoffrey has a ‘substantial nexus’ with South Carolina [for purposes of the state’s income tax].”

II. Other Intangible Property Companies Cases
A. Geoffrey, Inc. v. Comm’r of Rev., 899 N.E.2d 87

(Mass. 2009), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2853 (2009)

B. Geoffrey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 132 P

.3d 632 (Okla. Ct. App. 2005)

C. A & F Trademark, Inc. v. Tolson, 605 S.E.2d 187

(N.C. Ct. App. 2004), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 353 (2005)

D. Lanco, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Tax., 908 A.2d 176 (N.J.

2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2974 (2007)

42

SLIDE 43

Economic Nexus

I. Tax Comm’r v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 640 S.E.2d 226 (W.V. 2006), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1141 (2007)

A. An out-of-state bank that issued credit cards to West Virginia customers had income tax nexus based on its “significant economic presence” in the state.

II. Capital One Bank v. Comm’r of Rev., 899 N.E.2d 76

(Mass. 2009), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2827 (2009)

A. “While the concept of ‘substantial nexus’ is more elastic than ‘physical presence,’ it plainly means a greater presence, both qualitatively and quantitatively, than the minimum connection between a State and a taxpayer that would satisfy a due process inquiry.” B. Capital One’s credit card business, generating millions of dollars in income, established substantial nexus with Massachusetts despite a lack of physical presence.

43

SLIDE 44

Economic Nexus

I. Quantitative Statutes

A. MTC Factor Presence ($500K in sales)

B.

Cal. Rev. & Tax Code

23101 ($500K in sales)

C. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.

206.621(1) ($350K in sales)

D. Ohio Rev. Code Ann.

5751.01 ($500K in sales) E.

Wash. Rev. Code Ann.

82.04.067 ($250K in sales)

II. Constitutional Challenges
A. The Ohio Tax Commissioner ruled that an out-of-state

mail order company had substantial nexus with Ohio for purposes of the commercial activity tax because its gross receipts in the state satisfied the bright line presence standard (over $500,000 in receipts). In re L.L. Bean, Inc., (Ohio Dep’t of Taxation, Final Determination, August 10, 2010).

44

SLIDE 45

Economic Nexus

I. Qualitative Statutes

A. Connecticut

1.

Conn. Gen. Stat.

12-216a (“Any company that derives income from sources within this state and that has a substantial economic presence within this state, evidenced by a purposeful direction of business toward this state”) 2. $500,000 quantitative threshold adopted by informal

publication. Connecticut Informational Publication No. 2010(29.1)

(Dec. 28, 2010)

B. New Hampshire

1. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 77-A:1(XII) (“substantial economic presence”)

C. Wisconsin

1.

Wisc. Stat.

71.22(1r) (“regularly selling products or services of any kind or nature to customers in [Wisconsin]”)

45

SLIDE 46

Economic Nexus

I. Scripto Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207

(1960)

A. “True, the ‘salesmen’ are not regular employees of appellant devoting full time to its service, but we conclude that such a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as ‘independent’ neither results in changing his local function of solicitation . . .”

II. Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington

Dep’t of Rev., 482 U.S. 232 (1987)

A. The “crucial factor governing nexus” is whether the activities performed by the independent contractor on behalf of the out-of- state company are “significantly associated with the taxpayer’s ability to establish and maintain a market in [the] state for the sales.”

46

SLIDE 47

Slide Intentionally Left Blank

SLIDE 48

Agenda

I. Recent Developments II. Background III. Income Tax Implications IV. Other Aspects of State Actions A. Amazon Tax Collection Deals B. VDA Offers C. Other Concerns

48

SLIDE 49

Amazon Tax Collection Deals - Examples

I. Arizona

A. On Oct. 26, Amazon revealed it reached agreement with Arizona to start collecting taxes on sales of physical goods beginning Feb. 1, 2013, and on sales of digital goods and services beginning July 1, 2013.

II. Texas

A. Amazon announced on Jan. 30, 2013 that it would open three fulfillment centers in Texas as part of its sales tax collection agreement with the state.

III. Florida

A. On June 13, 2013, Amazon.com agreed to establish new warehouse facilities in Florida. The proposed expansion is estimated to create 3,000 full time jobs and result in $300 million in investment in Florida over the next three years. Amazon will begin to collect sales tax from Florida customers, as required under Florida law, upon completion of the facilities.

IV. Massachusetts

A. On December 11, 2012, Massachusetts reaches an agreement with Amazon.com that the company will start collecting and remitting the state’s sales tax beginning in November 2013.

49

SLIDE 50

VDA Offers

I. Voluntary Disclosure Agreements provide taxpayers with the opportunity to disclose tax compliance errors to the states without subjecting themselves to penalties and other enforcement actions. II. Generally are non-statutory “settlements” A. But see N.Y . Tax Law 1700

1. “Under the voluntary disclosure and compliance program, upon execution of a voluntary disclosure and compliance agreement by the eligible taxpayer and the commissioner, the commissioner shall waive any applicable penalties (including the additional rate of interest prescribed under section eleven hundred forty-five of this chapter) for the following: (1) Failure to pay any such tax liability; (2) Failure to file a return or report with respect to any such tax liability; and (3) Failure to pay estimated tax. In addition, no criminal action or proceeding shall be brought against an eligible taxpayer relating to the tax liability covered by the agreement.” 2. “To participate in the voluntary disclosure and compliance program, an eligible taxpayer must apply by submitting a disclosure statement in the form and manner prescribed by the commissioner. The disclosure statement shall contain all the information the commissioner reasonably deems necessary to effectively administer the program.”

50

SLIDE 51

Other Concerns

I. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) Suits A. United States v. Porcelli, 865 F .2d 1352 (2d Cir. 1989)

1. Porcelli failed to collect retail sales tax on the gasoline sold at his Gaseteria gas stations, filed approximately one hundred fraudulent New York State sales tax returns between 1979 and 1982, and, as a result, deprived New York of nearly $5 million in sales taxes. 2. “We think that the prosecution of a state sales tax evader for a RICO violation pushes that law to its outer limits, especially when that tax evasion was not made criminal by the state itself at the time that the fraudulent returns were

filed. We nevertheless affirm the convictions . . . by virtue of the

extraordinarily broad sweep of RICO . . . .”

51

SLIDE 52

Other Concerns

I. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) Suits A. Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006)

1. “[W]e conclude Ideal cannot maintain its claim based on [RICO]. . . . Ideal’s theory is that Joseph and Vincent Anza harmed it by defrauding the New York tax authority and using the proceeds from the fraud to offer lower prices designed to attract more customers. The RICO violation alleged by Ideal is that the Anzas conducted National’s affairs through a pattern of mail fraud and wire fraud. The direct victim of this conduct was the State of New York, not Ideal. . . . The cause of Ideal’s asserted harms, however , is a set of actions (offering lower prices) entirely distinct from the alleged RICO violation (defrauding the State).”

52

SLIDE 53

Other Concerns

I. False Claims Act Suits A. What are they? B. Derived from Federal False Claims Act

1. “Whistleblower” Relator gets rich reward for disclosing fraud on government 2. Typically an employee with inside knowledge 3. Allege a fraudulent failure to collect and remit tax 4. State can intervene and prosecute or let Relator proceed; benefit split between Relator and State with Relator obtaining up to 30% in many cases.

53

SLIDE 54

Other Concerns

I. False Claims Act Suits A. Substantial Risks to Taxpayers:

1. Treble damages = to three times tax 2. Penalties for each “false” filing 3. Obligation to pay attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in case of loss or settlement

54

SLIDE 55

Other Concerns

I. False Claims Act Suits A. How widespread?

1. 29 states, New York City, Chicago, Allegheny County, PA 2. 9 prohibit tax actions (CA, HI, MA, NM, NC, TN, VA, DC and NY City) 3. 3 (IL, IN, RI) bar income tax actions 4. Remaining states have no tax bar

55

SLIDE 56

Other Concerns

I. False Claims Act Suits A. Difficulties for Taxpayers:

1. Pro – “whistleblower” sentiment 2. Fact intense, so hard to dismiss 3. May not involve State Revenue Departments; State AGs lack tax knowledge, may seek to benefit from settlement rather than seek dismissal 4. Complex intersection of false claims and tax

56

SLIDE 57

Other Concerns

I. False Claims Act Suits A. Results:

1. Barrage of Illinois litigation in two waves, aimed at sales tax on ecommerce and tax on shipping and handling charges 2. New York action v. Sprint-Nextel Corp. 3. Other state attorneys general (TN, NV) have opposed the litigation

57

SLIDE 58

PRACTICAL COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS

Pat Derdenger, Steptoe & Johnson

SLIDE 59

Sales Tax Affiliate Nexus “Practical and Compliance Concerns”

By Pat Derdenger, Partner Ben Gardner, Associate Steptoe & Johnson LLP pderdenger@steptoe.com; bgardner@steptoe.com (602) 257-5209

SLIDE 60

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

Employee within a state.

– Employees located in a state are sufficient to establish nexus. General Trading Co.

Independent contractors.

– The presence of even non-exclusive independent contractors that solicit sales in the state is sufficient nexus. Scripto, Inc. v. Carson.

60

SLIDE 61

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

In-state deliveries by the vendor.

– Illinois supreme court in Browns’ Furniture held that 15-18 deliveries per month from Missouri into Illinois was sufficient nexus.

Personalized delivery service.

– An out-of-state vendor’s use of a third-party carrier to deliver products into a state established nexus, where the carrier advertised for the remote vendor on its trucks, collected payments, set-up products, did minor repairs or picked up products for repair at the vendor’s out-of- state location. Furnitureland South.

61

SLIDE 62

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

Trade show attendance.

– Rules vary by state. – Not sufficient nexus. Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. Share Int’l, Inc. – Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-407(a)(15)(D) – no nexus if no sales are made at the show and the vendor is present at shows less than 14 days per year. – Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 6203(e) – no nexus if vendor attends shows less than 15 days per year and show activities generate less than $100,000 in California sales, but tax is due on sales made at the show. – Iowa Pol. LTR 01300047 (2001) – more than one day’s attendance is sufficient nexus. – Preifert Mfg. Co. (Wash. Bd. of Tax App.) – ranching equipment vendor had nexus by making occasional trips to state to meet with retailers and by attending horse shows.

62

SLIDE 63

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

Ownership of property in the state.

– Must exceed an opaque de minimis threshold. See Quill (presence of floppy discs in-state was not enough). – Rental of personal property within the state is sufficient. Wabash Power Equipment Co. v. Lindsay. – Sufficient nexus existed in part due to taxpayer’s ownership of a warehouse and apartment in state. In re Krystallos, Inc.

63

SLIDE 64

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

In state “agent.”

– The “agent” does not need to be a common law agent or an exclusive agent, but must help the vendor establish and maintain a market in the taxing state. Scripto, Inc. – The operative inquiry – does the in-state party help the remote vendor establish and maintain a market for its products in the taxing state. Tyler Pipe.

64

SLIDE 65

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

In state warranty service.

– Multistate Tax Comm’n bulletin for computer mail order companies – in-state warranty repair services by independent contractor establishes nexus. – Dell Catalog Sales cases

Nexus – Louisiana (2006); New Mexico (2008).
No Nexus – Connecticut (2003).

65

SLIDE 66

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

In state affiliates.

– Courts have generally held that affiliation alone does not establish nexus. SFA Folio Collections (Conn.); SFA Folio Collections (Ohio); Current Inc. (Cal.).

But states keep trying to pass affiliate nexus laws.

– Borders Online (Cal.) – Out-of-state, online retailer had nexus because its in-state, bricks & mortar affiliate accepted returns for the online retailer and encouraged customers to shop online. – BarnesandNoble.com, LLC (N.M.) – Nexus created through in- state affiliate book store who displayed the out-of-state vendor’s website in its stores, shared the same trademark (brand loyalty), and engaged in cross-marketing activities that benefited the vendor, all of which helped the online vendor establish and maintain a market in the state.

66

SLIDE 67

Practical Concerns: Avoiding Nexus Pitfalls – Employees, Agents, Property and Affiliates

– Possible Solutions

Be aware of where the company has employees, agents, property

and affiliates and consider the nexus implications in advance.

67

SLIDE 68

Slide Intentionally Left Blank

SLIDE 69

Practical Concerns: Location of Web Servers

Does use of a web server establish nexus?

– Rulings on Servers:

New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Dep’t, Ruling No. 401-97-6

(11/20/1997) – If a taxpayer “owns or leases the server . . . and the server is in New Mexico, that in itself would create nexus for [the taxpayer] with New Mexico”

– However, simply having a website on a computer server located in New Mexico, but owned by a third party, is not nexus. N.M. Stat. § 7-9-3.3 » S.B. 207 was introduced in 2012 to repeal this exclusion, but the bill died in committee.

69

SLIDE 70

Practical Concerns: Location of Web Servers

Va. Dep’t of Taxation, Pub. Doc. Ruling No. 05-128 (08/02/05) –

“out-of-state seller whose only presence in Virginia is a computer server [owned by another business] used to create or maintain an Internet website does not have nexus for sales and use tax purpose” – But, if the dealer owns or rents the server and it is located in Va., the dealer may have nexus. See Va. Dep’t of Taxation, Pub.

Doc. Ruling No. 04-38 (07/28/2004)

70

SLIDE 71

Practical Concerns: Location of Web Servers

Ill. Dep’t of Rev., General Information Letter No. ST 01-0088-GIL

(05/09/01) – “retailer’s use of a server located in Illinois, in and of itself, is generally not sufficient to establish nexus for sales of tangible personal property made through the internet” – The retailer did not own or lease the server. – Rather, it paid a fee to a web-hosting company for use of the server (also used by others).

71

SLIDE 72

Practical Concerns: Location of Web Servers

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Policy Letter Ruling No.

201103016L (03/24/2011)

– “If the entirety of your presence and business activity in Texas is limited to: 1) having ONLY a website on a third-party server in Texas (upon which the third-party provides all the functionality) and 2) delivering physical products into the state via third-party common carrier, you are not considered to be engaged in business in Texas.” – The ruling indicated that the outcome might be different if the out-of- state vendor stored digital inventory, such as software programs for sale, on the server in Texas. – Texas enacted HB 1841 in 2011, which codifies this ruling.

72

SLIDE 73

Practical Concerns: Location of Web Servers

– Solutions

Taxation may turn on whether you own or lease the server, or

contract with a third-party for a server service

To be safe, use servers that are located in states in which you

already have physical presence – i.e. home state

73

SLIDE 74

Practical Concerns: Business Entity Naming Policies

MTC Proposed Model Affiliate Sales Tax Nexus Statute (April 28, 2005) - An out-of-state vendor has substantial nexus for use tax collection if: 1. Out-of-state vendor and in-state business are “related parties” 2. Out-of-state vendor and in-state business use identical or similar name, trade name, trademark or goodwill to develop, promote or maintain sales, or in-state business provides services to or that benefit the out-of-state vendor’s in-state sales 3. Out-of-state vendor must have at least $100,000 of sales in previous year

74

SLIDE 75

Practical Concerns: Business Entity Naming Policies

– Several states have adopted statutes similar to the MTC Proposed Statute, for example:

Alabama – Ala. Code § 40-23-190(a)(2)
Idaho - Idaho Code § 63-3615A(1)(b)
New Jersey - N.J. Rev. Stat. § 54:32B-2(i)(2)(b)

– Comptroller v. Furnitureland South, Inc., No. C-97-37872-OC, Md.

Cir. Ct., Aug. 18, 1999. - Nexus found in part through use of similar

logos between in-state and out-of-state parties

75

SLIDE 76

Practical Concerns: Business Entity Naming Policies

– Solution

Don’t use the same or a similar name for your in-state and out-of-

state affiliates or internet and bricks and mortar affiliates.

76

SLIDE 77

Practical Concerns: Location of Distribution and Fulfillment Activities

– States may find Nexus established through an affiliate engaging in distribution and fulfillment activities on your behalf

Lyon Metal Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 58 Cal. App. 4th

906 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) – Nexus established in CA where goods were stored in a warehouse in CA and delivered from there to customers

Williams and Co., Inc. v. Dailey, 303 S.E.2d 737 (W. Va. 1983) – Nexus

established in part due to presence of taxpayer’s warehouse in state.

Some states have adopted or considered legislation specifying that

maintaining a warehouse or distribution center in the state (even when held by a related entity) establishes nexus, for example:

– Texas (S.1, 2011), Oklahoma (HB 2359, 2010), Virginia (SB 597,2012), Georgia (SB 386, 2012), Kansas (SB 83, 2013), Maine (HB 251, 2013), Ohio (HB 59, 2013), W. Va. (HB 2754, 2013).

77

SLIDE 78

Practical Concerns: Location of Distribution and Fulfillment Activities

– States may find Nexus established through an affiliate engaging in distribution and fulfillment activities on your behalf

Other states have created temporary safe harbors for distribution centers.

– S. Carolina (S.B. 36, 2011) – distribution centers do not create physical presence until January 1, 2016 if: (1) a new facility is placed in service between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012; (2) the facility creates at least 2,000 new jobs; and (3) the remote vendor makes (or causes to be made) a $125 million capital investment in the facility. – Tennessee (H.B. 2370, 2012) – distribution centers do not create physical presence until January 1, 2014 (or the effective date of federal legislation) if: (1) a new facility is placed in service between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2014; (2) the facility creates at least 3,500 new jobs; (3) the facility maintains 3,500 jobs until January 1, 2016; and (4) the remote vendor makes (or causes to be made) a $350 million investment in the facility.

78

SLIDE 79

Practical Concerns: Location of Distribution and Fulfillment Activities

– Solution

Locate distribution and fulfillment activities in states in which you

already have physical presence and nexus.

79

SLIDE 80

Practical Concerns: Voluntary Disclosure Agreements

– VDA programs give taxpayer who have not filed tax returns in

ne or more states to disclose the tax compliance error and

negotiate a settlement of any back taxes. – Incentives:

Penalties: States generally agree to waive penalties and other

types of enforcement actions (but usually not interest).

Look-back period: States generally agree to limit the look-back

period (generally the past 3-6 years, depending on the state).

Anonymity: In many states, taxpayer can come forward

anonymously through a representative and maintain anonymity until a settlement agreement has been reached.

80

SLIDE 81

Practical Concerns: Voluntary Disclosure Agreements

– Two approaches:

State by state approach.
Multistate Tax Commission’s Multi-state Voluntary Disclosure

Program.

81

SLIDE 82

Practical Concerns: Voluntary Disclosure Agreements

– State by state approach.

The taxpayer or its representative contacts each state directly.
Good approach when there are a small number of states at issue.
Procedures, eligibility and terms vary by state.

82

SLIDE 83

Practical Concerns: Voluntary Disclosure Agreements

– MTC Multi-state Voluntary Disclosure Program.

The MTC acts as an intermediary and single point of contact for working
ut voluntary disclosure agreements with one or more states.
Eligibility: Taxpayer must not have had any contact with a state regarding the tax

type for which voluntary disclosure is sought, such as. » Filing a return for the tax type. » Paying a tax. » Receiving an inquiry from the state regarding the tax type.

Most states participate in the MTC’s program.

– Exceptions: New Mexico, Illinois, Delaware, Nevada, Ohio, and New York. – California SBOE participates (i.e. sales tax), but the FTB does not (i.e. income/franchise tax).

83

SLIDE 84

Practical Concerns: Voluntary Disclosure Agreements

– Observation:

Consider pursuing a VDA if it is clear that you have nexus in a state but

have not filed returns or paid tax.

84