Nevada enacts 'commerce tax'

Nevada has signed into law (SB 483) the imposition of a new 'commerce tax' on each business entity engaged in business in Nevada whose gross revenue in a fiscal year exceeds $4 million. 

The Nevada gross revenue is determined by taking gross revenue and making specific adjustments.

Note: there is no adjustment for cost of goods sold.

Revenue is sitused to Nevada differently depending on the source of revenue (i.e., tangible property, real property, services, etc.).

Note: Services are sitused using market-based sourcing methodology (i.e., where the purchaser receives the benefit of the service).

The tax rate will vary based on the industry of the taxpayer.

The tax year begins July 1, 2015 and the first report is due 45 days following June 30, 2016.

Bottom Line

Taxpayers are now subject to a new tax in Nevada, similar to Texas' gross receipts tax, Washington's Business & Occupation Tax or Ohio's Commercial Activity Tax, but with deviation.

Taxpayers must prepare to comply, budget and navigate this new tax (burden).

the usual suspects rise again: economic nexus, combined reporting, market-based sourcing

State legislatures and governors continued to move in the same direction this week - economic nexus, combined reporting, and market-based sourcing. The usual suspects popped up everywhere.

1. Tennessee enacted the "Revenue Modernization Act" (HB 644 and HB 291) - implementing economic nexus (effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2016), and market-based sourcing (applicable to tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2016); the bills also make changes to the affiliated intangible expense addback (applicable to tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2016) and impose a new use tax on cloud computing starting July 1, 2015.
2. Tennessee Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the alternative apportionment Vodafone case (see prior posts for details). The case may be impacted by the Revenue Modernization Act's enactment of market-based sourcing.
3. Connecticut Senate proposed mandatory combined reporting (HB 7061). General Electric and Aetna, Inc. publicly communicated their disapproval by stating they would actually consider moving their operations out of state if the bill is signed by the Governor.
4. Virginia workgroup met to discuss enacting market-based sourcing.
5. Maryland Tax Court continued to use unitary principle to establish nexus (Staples Inc. v. Comptroller).
6. California Court of Appeals held that allowing only intrastate unitary taxpayers to make a separate or combined filing election was discriminatory (Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board).
7. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal reversed an administrative law judge's determination and decided that affiliated corporations were entitled to file on a combined basis (SunGard Capital Corp).

does state sovereignty allow states to overreach?

"Substantial nexus," "economic nexus," "physical presence nexus" - who will win?

Federalism and state sovereignty - are they in conflict or can they work in concert?

"Substantial nexus" used to mean a seller had to have a physical presence in a state before they were subject to taxation. Now, more and more states are leaning on economic nexus standards which essentially say a seller can be subject to tax simply if they have customers in a state or direct some type of activity towards the state to create or maintain a market (vague, I know). Some states have taken it a step further (to make it less vague), and have instituted "factor presence" nexus standards which simply provide 'bright-line' thresholds. Meaning, these states maintain that a seller is subject to tax in their states if the seller has a specific amount of sales, property or payroll in their state. For example, the thresholds may be $50,000 of property, $50,000 of payroll or $500,000 of sales. Some state thresholds are lower for sales, such as $350,000 in Michigan or $250,000 in Washington. Regardless of the threshold limit, factor presence nexus standards and economic nexus is the trend as states look to maintain services and their budgets while imposing tax on non-voters (out-of-state taxpayers).

This discussion regarding nexus standards and the ability of the federal government to create legislation to 'big brother' the states was the subject of the June 2, 2015 Hearing before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. Several government officials and interested parties presented testimony either for or against the 3 pieces of federal legislation currently under review:

1. The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (HR 2315)
2. The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2015 (HR 1643)
3. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2015 (HR 2584)

The title to this post insinuates that states are using economic nexus to reach (or overreach) beyond their borders and tax out of state companies based on standards that are arguably unconstitutional. Regardless of that debate and regardless of which side of the fence you stand, states do have the right to determine 'how' and 'who' they tax inside their state as long as they stay with the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and other applicable federal laws, such as P.L. 86-272. Companies and individuals have the right to conduct business across state lines without concern that they will be subject to tax when their activities are de minimus or do not reach significant (substantial) levels. Otherwise, the burden on interstate commerce is unnecessary and misplaced.

States argue that taxpayers will avoid (evade) paying taxes if the nexus standard or threshold is too high. However, states should only be able to tax what they legally can tax. Then they should seek to adjust their rules to tax who they can tax. Consequently, avoiding taxes that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay in the first place, really isn't evasion.

The states keep wanting to change their rules so they can tax more taxpayers because the economy changes (i.e., impact of Internet, remote sellers, service companies). Fine, change your rules, just don't exceed your authority and taxpayers will comply. Taxpayers deserve clarity, and to be treated within the boundaries of the law (both federal and state), so they can function and operate effectively in what is already a multi-jurisdictional, non-uniform, complex playing field.

have you read the Wynne case?

By now, you have most likely heard about the U.S. Supreme Court case regarding Wynne. The along awaited verdict. It was close (5-4 vote), but the taxpayer won. There are many publications by several firms and the media talking about the ruling and what it means, not only for taxpayers in Maryland, but other states as well. Regardless of what each firm or publication has said, have you read the case for yourself? I encourage you to do so. Especially state tax practitioners. 

Most of the discussion in the ruling is around the application, existence and authority of the dormant Commerce Clause. The majority supports and utilizes the dormant Commerce Clause to rule in the taxpayer's favor. The minority appears to believe the dormant Commerce Clause has been twisted into something it was not created to be, and thus, the ruling is misled.

The ruling defines the purpose of the 'dormant Commerce Clause' as:

"prohibiting certain state taxation even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject."

The majority of the Court said the following about the dormant Commerce Clause:

1. The clause "precludes states from discriminating between transactions on the basis of some interstate element."
2. "States may not tax a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the state."
3. "We must consider not the formal language of a tax statute, but rather its practical effect."

Justice Scalia said the following in his dissenting opinion:

1. The "negative Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud."
2. "The clearest sign that the negative Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud is that utterly illogical holding that congressional consent enables States to enact laws that would otherwise constitute impermissible burdens upon interstate commerce."
3. "Neither the Constitution nor our legal traditions offer guidance about how to separate improper state interference with commerce from permissible state taxation or regulation of commerce."
4. "Change is almost the doctrine's natural state as it is the natural state of legislation in a constantly changing national economy."
5. "Balancing the needs of commerce against the needs of state governments. That is a task for legislation, not judges."

The Ruling holds the following keys (that other firms and the media have seemed to latch onto):

1. There is no distinction between a tax on gross receipts or a tax on net income when it comes to the application of the dormant Commerce Clause.
2. There is no distinction between taxing individuals or corporations when it comes to the application of the dormant Commerce Clause.
3. The Maryland taxing regime fails the "internal consistency test" of the dormant Commerce Clause by resulting in double taxation of out of state income and discriminating in favor of intrastate over interstate economic activity.

What do I think?

I think the case is an interesting discussion about the application of the Due Process Clause (the state's sovereign right to tax), and the limitations (or lack thereof) on a state's ability tax from the dormant (negative) Commerce Clause.

I think the case has ramifications for taxpayers across the country, including corporations and individuals. I am sure some lawyers and firms will extend the ruling's verdict to other fact patterns and litigation will ensue. 

I think Quill and P.L. 86-272 may need to be re-examined as a result of this case. 

What do you think?

Read the case and let me know.

don't let state tax 'blind spots' wreck your company

WHAT IS A BLIND SPOT?

According to Wikipedia, a blind spot, also known as a scotoma, is an obscuration of the visual field. A particular blind spot known as the blindspot, or physiological blind spot, or punctum caecum in medical literature, is the place in the visual field that corresponds to the lack of light-detecting photoreceptor cells on the optic disc of the retina where the optic nerve passes through it. Since there are no cells to detect light on the optic disc, a part of the field of vision is not perceived. The brain fills in with surrounding detail and with information from the other eye, so the blind spot is not normally perceived.

Now, that wasn't exactly what I think of when I think of a blind spot.  I usually think of a blind spot when I am driving my car.

In that context, Wikipedia says a blind spot in a vehicle is an area around the vehicle that cannot be directly observed by the driver while at the controls, under existing circumstances. Blind spots exist in a wide range of vehicles: cars, trucks, motorboats and aircraft.

As one is driving an automobile, blind spots are the areas of the road that cannot be seen while looking forward or through either the rear-view or side mirrors. The most common are the rear quarter blind spots, areas towards the rear of the vehicle on both sides. Vehicles in the adjacent lanes of the road that fall into these blind spots may not be visible using only the car's mirrors. Rear quarter blind spots can be:

• checked by turning one's head briefly (risking rear-end collisions),
• eliminated by reducing overlap between side and rear-view mirrors, or
• reduced by installing mirrors with larger fields-of-view.

STATE TAX BLIND SPOTS

Now, what does this have to do with state taxes?  

Well, I believe most, if not all, companies have state tax blind spots.  These blind spots may include:

1. nexus (taxable presence) in states in which the business is not filing income tax returns or collecting sales tax
2. using the incorrect apportionment formula, including the wrong items or amounts in apportionment factors or using the wrong method to apportion different types of income (tangible, intangible, service, etc.)
3. including the wrong entities in a combined or consolidated state income tax return due to incorrect unitary group analysis
4. classifying business income as nonbusiness income (or vice versa)
5. misapplying P.L. 86-272 protection (i.e., business is not operating within limits of protection or business is applying P.L. 86-272 protection to the wrong type of tax)
6. misapplying sales and use tax exemptions
7. not self-assessing and remitting use tax on purchases of taxable items
8. assuming the business is selling is a nontaxable service, when it is actually selling tangible property
9. assuming the business is selling intangible property, when it is actually selling tangible property
10. not adding back related-party expenses on the business' state income tax return when required
11. adding back related-party expenses on the business' state income tax return when NOT required
12. when acquiring or merging entities, failing to perform state and local tax due diligence to uncover liabilities and determine a tax-efficient way to combine the entities (before and after the acquisition/merger)
13. failing to comply with state bulk-sale notification requirements
14. filing a separate return when a combined group return should be filed
15. allowing a FIN 48 reserve for state uncertain tax positions to grow year after year without attempting to reduce uncertainty

And the list goes on and on and on.

YOUR COMPANY / YOUR STATE TAX BLIND SPOTS

In regards to your company's state tax "blind spots," it usually depends on the stage your company is in and the size of your business.

As your business grows and changes, it is vital that your business examines its state tax "blind spots" before a "wreck" (audit assessment, nexus questionnaire, etc.) occurs.

Do you know what your state tax 'blind spots' are?

Do you need to install a warning system?

"dissociation" dead for Washington B&O tax?

A taxpayer loses the dissociation argument in a Washington Business & Occupation (B&O) Tax case. The Washington Court of Appeals held Washington's statutes and regulations subject both categories (streams) of the taxpayer's Washington bound sales to the B&O tax. The court also held the application of the B&O tax is consistent with the commerce clause. (see Avnet Inc. v. State of Washington, April 28, 2015)

The taxpayer shipped all of its products from distribution centers outside Washington. During the time period at issue, the taxpayer maintained an office in Washington. The taxpayer excluded two categories of Washington bound sales described as "National Sales" and "Third Party Drop-Shipped Sales." The "National Sales" category involved transactions where the taxpayer's customer places an order from a location outside Washington with the taxpayers office outside Washington, but directs the taxpayer to ship the products to Washington.  The drop-shipped category involves a customer located outside Washington placing an order with the taxpayer's office outside Washington, but directs the taxpayer to ship products to a third party located in Washington. Nothing in the record indicated that the taxpayer's Washington office participated in soliciting or filling orders, investing customer credit, or providing technical support to the end users in the specific sales at issue in the case.

The case discusses the interpretation and application of Washington's statutes and regulations regarding when the B&O tax applies to a sale. The case discusses WAC Rule 193 in the context of the taxpayer's argument that sales "not significantly associated in any way with  the taxpayer's activities in Washington" could be excluded from the B&O tax (dissociation). The court reasoned that Rule 193 was interpretive and can not provide a greater exemption than that provided by B&O statutes. The court held the taxpayer's claim must be determined according to constitutional arguments.

The taxpayer conceded that it has nexus in Washington. The dispute centers around whether the commerce clause allows the taxpayer to "dissociate" its Washington bound national and drop-shipped sales by showing that its instate personnel played no significant role in those transactions. Previous court cases, including those in Washington, held dissociation to be a viable position. However, the court asserted, agreeing with the Department, that subsequent precedent has shown a progressive broadening of the types of activities that may establish substantial nexus. Those precedents, according to the court, show that a state need not demonstrate a direct connection between a taxpayer's nexus-creating activities and particular sales into the state in order to tax those sales.

Take Away

If you or your clients have utilized dissociation to keep specific Washington bound sales from taxation, it is time to review that position and determine the prudent path forward.