Is the Soft Drink Sales Tax Pouring into Your State?

Friday, July 30, 2010 by Tina-Marie Gulley
Sugary DrinksSugary DrinksSoft drink companies and other companies that sell sugary beverages are facing a war of epic proportion---the purposed tax on caloric sweetened beverages.  
 
Over the past three years, we have seen elected officials nationwide creating new tax proposals that would increase the price to as much as 6 percent in some states. These proposed soda tax bills could bring some much-needed income to the states that are facing enormous budget deficits. Charging an additional 7 cents per sugary drinks can raise up to an estimated $10 billion a year for cash strapped states. As an added benefit, proponents believe this tax will discourage the consumption of sugary drinks as these types of beverages are directly linked to obesity and diabetes among other health risks.
 
But don’t expect companies like Pepsi and the Coca Cola to go down without a fight. These soda pop makers and others within the industry continue to fork over millions of dollars towards lobbyists and calculated ad campaigns that help their plight.  
 
This is just the start of a long war. We anticipate more than 20 states and cities to introduce new sales tax bills for spring 2011.

'Taxed' by the Main Street Fairness Act

Thursday, July 22, 2010 by Jessica Davis
For those of you who do not know or have not heard of the recent changes to legislation, recently US representative William Delahunt introduced the "Main Street Fairness Act" to Congress which includes language that would allow states to collect sales tax for online purchases. Although the bill's proponents claim it is designed to promote simplification and fairness, passage of the bill would initiate radical changes to the administration and collection of sales and use taxes. 

On July 1, 2010 the bill was referred to the house and if passed it will go to the senate for approval.  So what does this mean for your business?  Well, currently the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) calls for the voluntary collection and remittance of sales tax in each member state, the Main Street Fairness Act would mandate it for all businesses. See a list of SST member states here.

The challenge is that the act would require businesses to conform to thousands of sales tax laws, which vary widely from one city, one county, and one state to another.  Businesses, whether online merchants, brick and mortar or catalog commerce will need an automated sales and use tax solution that will eliminate the challenges of transactional tax compliance.

The B&O tax war in Washington

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 by Yvonne Tomascak
The onerous B&O Tax

Washington State is one of the shall we say "special" states with a Business & Occupation tax (B&O tax).

This B&O tax is levied on business activity measured by gross proceeds from sales, gross income of the business, or the value of products resulting from activities conducted within the state. The rate of taxation is not uniform for all businesses. Rather, different types of businesses are taxed at different rates, depending upon their classification by the Washington State Legislature and the Washington Department of Revenue. While this tax applies to businesses within the state, it does not currently apply to out-of-state companies that provide a service, or companies that earn royalties selling, for example, a fast food franchise to a local entrepreneur. 
 
Need for change

Recently, Washington's Governor Gregoire introduced a $605 million tax package, which included several changes to the B&O tax. This package established minimum nexus standards and apportionment requirements for the B&O tax on services and royalties for out-of-state companies and repealed exemptions on several categories. In other words, the B&O tax is becoming an even more complex mess for businesses in Washington.

It didn't take long for voices to be heard in answer to the changes. The B&O tax was widely disliked before, now the Governor opened the door for suggestions on an alternative saying "If you want to come forward with an alternative to the B&O tax system in the state of Washington, the welcome mat is out from me".

While several options were brought forth - one initiative campaign is actually trying to sell the public on the creation of a graduated income tax (good luck on that one) - there have been other interesting suggestions. 

Jason Mercier, the director of the Center for Government Reform and Carl Gipson, Director of the Center for Small Business at Washington  Policy Center, suggested a constitually defined single business tax or gross-receipts-margin tax that would be:
  • Revenue neutral
  • Treat all business owners equally by using one flat rate
  • Eliminate loop holes and special treatment
  • Simplify administration of the tax to reduce compliance cost for businesses.

A business owner would choose one of three ways to calculate taxable receipts, selecting the one that results in the lowest tax burden. Calculating the taxable margins could be based on:

  • Total gross receipts minus labor costs, or;
  • Total gross receipts minus all production costs except labor, or;
  • 60 percent of total gross receipts.
The business owner would then multiply the taxable receipts by the Single Business Tax rate. The final amount owed for each taxing jurisdiction would be sent to the state in one payment and then distributed by the state to different local governments.

The Take Away
 
While this idea may sound enticing to many, it looks like the B&O tax will not only stay, but become more complex and an even bigger mandatory burden for all businesses, in-state and out-of-state, leaving those companies, that automated their tax compliance with ease of mind and a sigh of relief.
 

As States Struggle To Increase Revenue, Sales & Use Tax Rate Adjustments Provide Alternative to “Tax Increases”

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 by Yvonne Tomascak

Since June 1, there have been several hundred tax rate changes across the United States. In addition, more than two dozen states have updated or expanded their tax jurisdictional boundaries, assigning as many as six taxing authorities to a single street address in some states (state, county, city, special tax jurisdictions, etc.).  When states change rates, Avalara adapts. Avalara has recently and dramatically updated their rate data in response to a sharp uptick in the number of the states’ changes in sales and use tax rates, jurisdictional changes and other revenue-enhancement moves.

In addition to rate and boundary changes, Avalara added 172 new taxability rules to its database, covering such items as a week-long “Show Me Green” sales tax holiday on certain energy-efficient products in Missouri, massages by unlicensed therapists in the five boroughs of New York City and software maintenance contracts in Utah.   While there were a few tax holidays, such as a month-long suspension on sales tax for clothing items in Mississippi, most changes represented rate increases.

Putting it in perspective

Avalara’s VP of Compliance, Mike Gardner, put these changes in perspective:  “These changes are a good representation of exactly how complex and difficult sales tax compliance can be for businesses of all sizes.  So far, the year 2010 has seen a remarkable number of taxability rules changes and other changes to sales and use taxes.  While no clear cause-and-effect correlation has been unequivocally established, the states’ struggle to balance their budgets without taking the unpopular move of voting increases in income or property taxes seems to be reflected in the number of changes being made in the sales and use tax field.  Whatever reason, in the face of near-constant change, an automated web-based solution like AvaTax is really the only way for companies to ensure that their calculations and collections are based on the most accurate, up-to-date information and thereby reduce their exposure to audits and penalties.”

Colorado leads the way

One of these major changes comes from Colorado – a state known for having some of the most complex tax jurisdictions in America.  Some specific geographic locations in Colorado fall within as many as five distinct taxing jurisdictions.  Effective immediately, more than 100 of these jurisdictions will be treated as state-administered.

To Russia, With Love

Other significant changes and updates include the enhanced integration of AvaTax with the current Melissa Data Address Validation Service, as well as adding full sales tax and VAT information for the Russian Federation and the Canadian Maritime Provinces.

US states which had significant changes in codes, rates or jurisdictions include:
• Updated Tax Codes:  South Carolina, Utah,  Alabama, Alaska, California, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas
• Critical Nexus Changes:  Texas, Colorado, Alabama (259 in Alabama)
• Twenty-six Sales Tax II Rate updates for 40 jurisdictions in 11 SST and 30 jurisdictions in 8 non-SST states
• Computer Software Maintenance:  Rhode Island, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Missouri, Wyoming
• Boundary Updates:  California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Washington State
• ASP-Related Taxability Service Codes:  All 50 states
• Embroidery Services:  All 50 states
• Clothing:  20 Changes in New York; a sales tax holiday in more than 24 categories in Mississippi in the month of July
• Dry Cleaning & Laundering:  Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
• Travel Expenses: Wyoming
• Medical-related Products: Oklahoma
• Food and Food Ingredients: Colorado, more than 40 foods and ingredients in Arizona
• Bottled Water:  Washington
• Construction Services:  Non-SST States
• Computer Software Maintenance:  Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina
• Freight:  Wisconsin
• Local Government Entities:   Minnesota
• Taxability Supporting SST Testing
• Candy – More than 100 Categories:  Washington

Avalara Wins Big at the Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference

Friday, July 2, 2010 by Jessica Davis
Avalara is Microsoft’s Software-plus-Services Partner of the Year for 2010! Avalara was chosen out of an international field of nearly 3,000 top Microsoft partners because Avalara has consistently delivered market-leading customer solutions built on Microsoft technology, and has done so since 2004.

Allison Watson, Corporate VP, Worldwide Partner Group, Microsoft Corp. proclaims “Avalara’s AvaTax created an enterprise-level solution for small and medium businesses that has transformed the sales tax compliance process through powerful decision-making and calculation capabilities. Avalara’s on-demand system delivers quick and accurate tax calculations while driving down customer costs.”

“This recognition from Microsoft demonstrates that Avalara has moved from leader in an important niche market to a player in the international business marketplace,” says Scott McFarlane, Founder and CEO of Avalara. “Since 2004, we have worked closely with Microsoft to ensure that our products and SaaS services were completely integrated with state-of-the-art Microsoft technology – this award is the prominent acknowledgment of the results of our strong commitment to the Microsoft Partner program.”

The formal presentation of this incredible award will be made at The Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference (WPC) in Washington DC in mid-July.  Avalara's founder and COO, Rory  Rawlings, will receive the award and present content during an informative session, Mapping Opportunities in the Cloud with Bing Maps. To learn more about the sessions at WPC, click here.

Direct Marketers Take Aim at Colorado Reporting and Notice Regulations.

Friday, June 25, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

The Direct Marketing Association finds itself at odds with the new Colorado reporting and noticing requirements for non-collecting vendors.

Looks like these guys are going legal on the Centennial state (from the linked fact sheet):

"DMA and its members are filing suit against the state of Colorado in Federal Court. DMA will act as the plaintiff so that no one business has to feel the brunt of any recourse from the Colorado Department of Revenue. DMA is acting now and you need to as well. Tennessee and California are considering similar legislation and others will soon follow."

Here is a post on the Cali Bill  (with an update, see update #2) and here is a post on Oklahoma's new reporting regulations that only partially mirror the Colorado regs.

See here for prior post on the CO regs at issue here.

Would California's License Plate Adverts be Subject to Sales Tax Under New Federal Trade Commission Rules?

Thursday, June 24, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

Probably, if the smart plates are using wireless technology.

Oh, wait, not sure what exactly a License Plate Advertisement is?  Never heard of a Smart Plate?  Didn't know the FTC was looking into applying a sales tax on advertisements delivered via broadband?

We aren't totally clear on all those great questions either, but here is our best effort:

A License Plate Advertisement apparently is just that, a license plate that is actually a digital monitor, able to 'broadcast' advertisements, Amber Alerts, "wash me" messages, whatever.  And California wants to issue them to motorists and collect advertising revenue from the messages they might send.

Creepy or cool we guess, depending on your approach to 'things my car says without me knowing it'.  And don't forget that the plates could come in handy for auto payment of tolls, parking lot fees, and fleet inventory maintenance.

Anyhow, the Smart Plate is the technology.  And really cool, based on this glowing fact sheet from the guys who build it.

And finally, would the receipts from this advertising be subject to a proposed tax on advertisements delivered via the internet?  We can't really predict, but the possibility sure exists. 

The take away?  While California may not  impose a sales tax on the advertising revenues it raises for itself, the federal government may have already begun the process of imposing their own.

Nexus in Texas Makes for Taxing Times

Thursday, June 24, 2010 by Kyle Acohido
Like most states, Texas has many jurisdictions in which local taxes must be accounted for. This can be a real headache for business with nexus in the lone star state. Take Bergquist, national distributor of propane related equipment and sales for example. In Texas, Bergquist must collect state taxes at the rate of 6.25 percent plus an additional .5 percent based on the customer’s county. And this varies by location, with each county, city and municipality having a different rate. Keeping Texas sales tax rates current throughout the year is a can become a real drain on any businesses accounting department. But don’t take my word for it.

Meet Sandi Lemmon, accounting specialist for Bergquist.

Case Studies - Bergquist Inc. figures sales tax faster with several clever solutions

“It was horrible,” Lemmon says. “They send out half-inch paper booklets listing every possible taxing scenario that determine, based on ZIP code, which jurisdiction taxes have to be collected for particular customers within that ZIP code. And then the state of Texas would send updated booklets saying, ‘Okay, here’s the tax increases and decreases for all these counties, cities, etc.’ It became humanly impossible to keep up with this once we added the Texas nexus.”

Sandi’s situation is not uncommon. Read a recent case study featured in IBM Systems Magazine. Learn how Sandi simplified the process by leveraging Avalara’s cutting edge sales tax compliance solutions.

The ACLU has a Problem with North Carolina's Request of Amazon's Sales Records.

Thursday, June 24, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

Now, first, remember, we have already said this about North Carolina's attempts to get access to Amazon's sales records from sales to customers in the Tar Heel state:

"Yeah, that's right, forget the free speech issues, the privacy red herrings.  Forget about the proper scope of a sales tax audit curiously being performed on a retailer who, by law, has no obligation to collect sales tax.  Forget about all the writers and commenters who took the bait.  Forget it all because this battle is about revenues and it is about who is required to collect those revenues for the state of NC."

 

Well, the American Civil Liberties Union has decided that, sales tax compliance issues aside, this request from North Carolina infringes on privacy rights of North Carolinians.  We'll leave the penumbras and emanations to the Constitutional lawyers and law professors.   But how about the new lawsuit and sales tax compliance?

Well, what we said still stands: the North Carolina lawsuit is but a battle waged in the context of a much broader war between internet vendors and the states. And the ACLU lawsuit only tends to further deflect the public's attention from the core issue here, which is sales and use tax collections ... however ... whenever sales tax compliance rubs up against heavy hitters in the Constitutional rights bar, we just have to have a peek.

Here is the COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, or in plain speech, the lawsuit.  Some interesting tidbits (remember, the ACLU hates this law because of privacy concerns, not because of any particular sales tax compliance issue):

How the ACLU frames the issue.  In a word, privacy.:

"This case involves the constitutional rights of thousands of individual Amazon
customers to read books, watch films, and buy other items without the government learning about their purchasing decisions and expressive activities"

The scope of the relief sought.  The ACLU wants an end to these requests forever:

"This is not the first time that DOR has issued a broad information request to an
out-of-state website or other business that encompasses this extremely personal and sensitive information. According to DOR, it is also not the last time that such information requests will be issued. Intervenors therefore also seek to have the Court declare DOR’s policy and practice of issuing information requests encompassing their expressive and private information to be unconstitutional and to enjoin DOR from issuing such overbroad and constitutionally impermissible information requests in the future."

And finally, why is privacy the big issue here?  According to the ACLU, the nature of the books purchased triggers the privacy concerns:

"Many of the items available for purchase on Amazon may be viewed by some as
being controversial or offensive. For example, if one so desires, one can purchase through Amazon pro-choice or pro-life clothing, books supporting and criticizing President Obama, feminist or anti-feminist literature, Bibles or anti-Bible writings, anti-gun or pro-gun books and accessories, and Confederate flags or Rainbow Coalition flags, just to name a few."


The take away?  The sales tax compliance issues surrounding nexus are a hotbed of talk amongst vendors and sales tax pros.  The Constitutional issues raised by the strategies of the states to encourage collection are becoming a hot topic for a broader audience.






 

Buffalo Tax Professionals: Sales Tax Compliance is Really Important!

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

Listen, we recognize that we end up in central New York a little more often than some other corners of the USA, but hey, we got two Syracuse grads in the office so be happy it isn't salt potatoes, snow and Dinosaur Bar-B-Q 24/7, OK?

In any event, this business news article from the shores of Lake Erie has some great quotes.  And as they say 'we couldn't have said it better ourselves' ... :


A Historical Perspective:
 

“For years and years, when clients failed to pay their taxes, we didn’t worry too much about it. We just put them in Chapter 13 for repayment,” said Jeffrey M. Freedman, senior partner at Jeffrey Freedman Attorneys at Law, which sponsored the event. “Today it’s a whole new ballgame. People with lots of back taxes are being charged with crimes.”


The Trend:

Criminal tax fraud prosecutions have increased to 327 in the fiscal year 2009-10, up from just 33 for the same period in 2006-07.



From the Trenches:

“The best advice to give clients,” (William Comiskey) said, “is to treat this money like it doesn’t belong to you — because it doesn’t.”




And finally, the Capstone Sentiment:


“My problem doesn’t focus on cheats; it focuses on the state’s failure to educate people on what they need to do to comply,” said Gabriel J. Ferber, an attorney with Nesper, Ferber & DiGiacomo.



The take away?  Due to the fiscal messes that most states find themselves in, aggressive sales tax compliance scrutiny is upon vendors in all jurisdictions.  Finding a trusted partner in the sales tax realm is becoming more and more of an imperative.


July 1 is Next Week, Are You Ready for HST in Ontario and B.C.?

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

The sun is finally out in the Pac Northwest, summer is here, we hope. 

Another change in climate is about to become the law of the land in the Great White North.  But this warm-up has nothing to do with fronts or storms, although it might be the source of some high pressure for vendors who sell items and services in Canada.  

Hurricane HST is about to make land in Ontario and B.C., promising sales tax compliance headaches at gusts of over a hundred miles an hour.

We have posted about the HST earlier, and today we really don't have much new to say.  Actually, the word today comes from the Canadian Revenue Agency, who has released yet another bulletin related to the HST transition.

The take away?  For many vendors, the transition to HST will be anything but a walk on a sunny beach.

Colorado Springs Discovers Fountain of Green From Sales Taxes on Medical Marijuana.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

Probably a little too much of the green on da blog as of late, but we just couldn't let this nugget  vaporize without sparking a little light on the subject.

Sales tax revenues on Medical Marijuana in Colorado Springs, CO have mushroomed 1000% in the first third of 2010. 

In fact, it looks like the annual take from tax on tokes will top ten times the tepid tally of Two Thousand Nine.

The bottom line here?  Politically speaking, maybe an owner of a dispensary said it best (from the linked article):

"This is revenue,” she said, referring to the taxes dispensaries are paying. “This is going to our city, and it’s staying within Colorado.”

 
For vendors interested in accurate sales tax compliance, the revelation that medical marijuana can be a stable source of sales tax revenues will only serve to focus more compliance pressure on vendors in this market.

Use Tax Compliance 101, Empire State Style.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

New York State has released Tax Bulletin TB-ST-910.  This Bulletin deals with Use Tax Compliance for businesses in the land of the bark eaters.

Use taxes are in the news these days in the context of the "Amazon" controversy regarding nexus.  In that conflict, the use taxes owed, but not remitted, by customers of remote vendors are the missing piece of the excise tax loop for the states.  For now, states seem much more willing to expand the definition of nexus or establish administrative burdens for non-collection than they are interested in going door-to-door collecting use tax.

OK, that all said, what about use taxes for the things vendors (all businesses, really) use up in the process of being in business?  This perspective of use tax compliance is not getting the press lately, but that does not change the use tax compliance issues that exist today.


As the bulletin points out, use tax compliance concerns can rear their head in many scenarios:

" This bulletin discusses the following common situations in which a business operating in New York State may owe use tax:
  • purchases of taxable property or services made outside of New York State;
  • purchases of taxable property or services made over the Internet, from catalogs, or by phone from businesses that are located outside of New York State;
  • purchases of taxable property or services on an Indian reservation;
  • purchases where the taxable property or services are used in a different local taxing jurisdiction in the state from where they were purchased or where they were delivered;
  • withdrawal of taxable property from inventory for use by the business; and
  • use of taxable property that is manufactured, processed, or assembled by the business.  "


States with a sales tax generally treat use taxes incurred by businesses in a similar manner as New York.  The bottom line is that if your company buys anything without paying sales taxes on the purchase, either
a. sales tax is collected upon the resale of that item, or
b.  use tax is due for items consumed by your company.

The take away?  Use tax compliance can be an issue for companies that don't sell any taxable items or services!  If your business buys anything exempt from sales taxes that it doesn't re-sell, your business might owe use taxes on the purchase value of those items.


Avalara Named Finalist in ABA’s Prestigious STEVIE Awards Program

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 by Bryan Wiggins
Avalara has been named as one of a few select finalists in the American Business Awards’ STEVIE Awards program for 2010.  Each year, the STEVIE awards recognizes software developers and other business leaders who have introduced the best new products for the year. In 2010, in their Software-as-a-Service category, STEVIE’s sponsor, the American Business Awards (ABA) has named Avalara as a finalist for the new AvaTax CU Consumer's Use Tax software product.
 
stevie logoAvalara's recognition in this national award program stems from the company's track record of serial innovation. While Avalara has earned a number of important awards in the accounting-related software field, this STEVIE finalist status represents an important recognition in the wider mainstream business marketplace.  
 
The Stevie Awards were created to honor and generate public recognition of the achievements and positive contributions of organizations and business people worldwide, according to ABA President Michael Gallagher.  “In short order, the Stevie has become one of the world's most coveted business awards.

AvaTax CU takes the headaches out of accurately calculating and reporting consumer's use taxes -- an area of growing audit risk for many businesses.

Pueblo Colorado Looks to Raise Sales Tax Rates for Medical Marijuana.

Monday, June 21, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

The city of Pueblo, Colorado is looking to take the argument for 'legalize and tax' to another level.  

We already posted about some state's attempts to pull medical marijuana under the sales tax tent.  The sales tax compliance issues facing dispensary vendors are compounded in Pueblo by what Will amount to a + 12% sales tax on medicine.
 

"Council President Larry Atencio, who favors licensing and regulating the businesses  said all indications are the marijuana centers have plenty of patients or customers.

"Voters have said people have a right to use medical marijuana for certain health conditions," Atencio said. "That's fine, but I'm also willing to tax the heck out of them. I'm all in favor of sin taxes, so a 4.3 percent tax sounds fine to me." "

The Council President seems confused on whether medical marijuana is medicine or a "sin".  We will leave that policy debate for another day.

The bottom line?  Now that a few of the states have become comfortable with medical marijuana, they are recognizing the potential for big revenues.

Housing and Economic Recovery Act and Sales Tax Compliance, part II.

Monday, June 21, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

A few months back, we posted a bit about a new federal requirement for on-line vendors.  The focus of the feds, naturally, is income tax compliance. 

But this is a sales tax blog, we know, read on ...

The law, codified at Sec. 6050W of the Internal Revenue Code, is an information reporting requirement for payment card and third-party payment transactions.   The nutshell version: 

"Each payment settlement entity shall make a return for each calendar year setting forth—
(1) the name, address, and TIN of each participating payee to whom one or more payments in settlement of reportable payment transactions are made, and
(2) the gross amount of the reportable payment transactions with respect to each such participating payee"


Relax, Gramma, your occasional E-Bay sales aren't in the sights of the IRS.  The law has a de-minimis exception for folks who sell less than $20,000 annually or have less than 200 annual transactions. 


OK, that being said, what are the tax compliance challenges presented by the new law? 

First of all, here is a great Law Review Article from the Southern California Law Review (USC to most of you).  The article does a good job of laying out the motivation and collateral effects of the new reporting rule. 

For individual vendors, there may not be excessive compliance costs related to the new law.  On its face, the compliance requirements of the new rule fall upon "third-party settlement organizations", or in plain English, the people who process your credit card order when you buy something on e-Bay.


Of course, some internet vendors process their own payments, so those select few will feel the brunt directly.  For the rest of them, it is likely that the costs associated with the new reportiong rules will be passed on to their consumers indirectly via fees charged by the their payment processor.

The information provided by the third party settlers will point the IRS to vendors and everyday folks who are receiving beaucoup third-party payments, but are not reporting all that income on their 1040.   ( I know, I know: underreporting of income by taxpayers, who'd have thought. ... ?)


The information provided by the third party settlers will be very valuable to sales tax compliance professionals as well.  (We are not sure how easily the purchases data will be made available to state auditors, but these are essentially 1099s, and those forms are not exactly state secrets in the current environment).  Bottom line: those 1099s will prove gross sales amounts to individual customers and that info will be very useful to sales tax compliance professionals. 

For any auditor interested in use tax compliance, those reports are the golden ticket to assessments for non-reporting purchasers who purchase for personal use free of sales tax.

And of course, for any auditor interested in sales tax compliance, the reports will be a roadmap of purchases by re-sellers, by which auditors will be able to glean estimates of expected gross receipts by looking at purchases by vendors.

The take away?  From 30,000 feet, this law looks like another reporting scheme designed to improve compliance.  Fair enough.   We have witnessed the Colorado reporting requirements for sales tax and other states' similar versions.  The stated purpose of these laws is to increase transparency and to aid regulators and auditors do their work, which the laws likely accomplish. 

But one offshoot of the new reporting laws may also serve to increase compliance costs for not collecting sales tax or not remitting use tax exceed the compliance costs for just collecting sales or remitting use tax in the first place.
 

Halfway Around the World, India Exerts Sales Tax Compliance Pressure on a Honda Dealer.

Friday, June 18, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

In honor of our friends and colleagues from India, we bring you avalara blog: International Edition...

The compliance requirements faced by sales tax vendors, and the enforcement thereof, do not begin and end at any border.

Here is an interesting blurb about sales tax compliance in India.  Seems a car dealer is accused of skirting local sales taxes by some, umm, creative geo-interpretation?

A car dealer?  Acting shady?  Well...

The take away?  As economies around the globe modernize, the demands placed on governments by their constituents expand.  In order for countries and states to provide the type of services and stability that folks in a modern economy expect, the money has to come from somewhere. 

Sales taxes and other similar excise taxes are ingrained vehicles for revenue collections, and compliance with those laws will remain a challenge for vendors all over the world for a long, long time coming.

Virginia Sales Tax Vendors Discover that Compliance Requires a Loan to Richmond

Friday, June 18, 2010 by Shane Ratigan
The states are struggling with short and long term budget pressures, this much we know.  Legislators in the Commonwealth of Virginia have dreamed up a novel approach to ... well, we aren't sure how much this will help relieve the fiscal reality faced in the Old Dominion, but it creates some headaches for large Virginia sales tax vendors.

The nutshell version, from the linked article, is that the state's fiscal year end is June 30, so accelerated sales tax payments from Virginian sales tax vendors will make the 2009-2010 fiscal year finish in the black.  Of course, eventually the accelerated payments will end and the state will have to budget for 11 months of collections, but that won't happen until 2021 when the program is set to end.


In the meantime though, at least one group of Virginia stakeholders is glad about the budgetary switcheroo:

" (Gov. Bob) McDonnell said this week that he's optimistic the state will end this fiscal year with a surplus that's significant enough to trigger a 3 percent bonus for state employees. The one-time cost would be $83 million."

 
No word in the article about just how happy Virginia Sales Tax vendors are to provide the state an interest free loan, mid-recession, to fund bonuses for state employees.  (Including the state's team of Sales Tax Compliance professionals, no doubt...)


Granted, the class of mandatory early remitters is relatively small (about 1000 as per the article) compared to the entire class of Virginia sales tax vendors.  However, the mandate presents significant sales tax compliance challenges.

We would guess one significant challenge is: how to find the cash to remit since the cash being remitted has not been collected from customers yet!

Yeah, that stings enough, but also consider the additional bookkeeping tasks involved with reconciling June filed-as sales with actual June sales.  Even vendors seeking a hardship exception to the accelerated sales tax payments must provide extensive documentation ahead of time to avoid penalty.


But the state will give a vendor a break under certain circumstances:

" A Dealer who would otherwise be required to make an accelerated sales tax payment, but is no longer in business, will not be required to make the accelerated sales tax payment "  Guidelines, Page 3.

At least no one can ever say that the Virginia Department of taxation doesn't have a heart, or a sense of humor.

The take away?  Large Virginia vendors must comply and pay up.  What else can we say?

Big Picture, vendors of all sizes and from all jurisdictions must recognize that budgetary shenanigans may be another source of sales tax compliance complexity.

Oklahoma Enacts Colorado-ish Use Tax Noticing Requirement.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 by Shane Ratigan
Since we are all over Oklahoma today, why not word about a new sales tax compliance wrinkle for vendors who sell to customers in the Sooner state.


There are a lot of sales tax related items that this monster legislation touches on, but perhaps the most timely issue relates to the so-called "Amazon Tax" controversy.  We have posted and posted about the on-going efforts of states to enforce collection of sales taxes by out of state vendors (hence, the imprecise term "internet tax" has developed).  A few states have attempted to dramatically expand the definition of nexus so as to include out of state vendors, like New York or North Carolina.

Other states have taken a different tack.  Well, actually Colorado is the only one to have actually gotten the regs off the ground, but California has a similar bill pending.

So what is the alternative to attempts to expand nexus beyond its generally understood definition?  Noticing, thats what!  See the newest Oklahoma law:

"SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of
law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes
as Section 1406.1 of Title 68, unless there
is created a duplication in numbering, reads
as follows:
A. Each retailer or vendor making sales of
tangible personal property from a place of
business outside this state for use in this
state that is not required to collect use
tax, shall provide notification on its
retail Internet website or retail catalog
and invoices provided 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.
The notification shall be readily visible.
It is further provided that no retailer
shall advertise on its retail Internet
website or retail catalog that there is no
tax due on purchases made from the retailer
for use in this state."

So, the lawmakers in Oklahoma made notice requirements law, backed off the Colorado reporting requirements, but then added a twist of advertising restrictions, just to keep all you vendors on your compliance toes.  

The take away?  The new law presents a unique, if not onerous, sales tax compliance challenge for vendors who sell in Oklahoma, but do not collect tax there.   

Big picture, the new law's notice requirements, as well as the law's amnesty for vendors, (maybe we'll get to that on a later post) reflects the current trend by states to 'try anything' to encourage sales tax collections by out of state vendors.

Oklahoma Raises the Stakes For Sales Tax Exemption Certificate Management .

Thursday, June 17, 2010 by Shane Ratigan

 The Sooner State legislature has just incentivized Oklahoma vendors to pay a little more attention to management of their customer's sales tax exemption certificates.  

From a political angle, this issue bubbled up in the context of veterans groups and the sales tax exemptions they typically are in possession of.  But the expanse of the final legislation (signed into law 6-7-10) provides penalties for non-compliant transactions with any holder of a sales tax exemption certificate.

The message from Oklahoma City is delivered via
this piece of legislation  (search for Bill SB1321).  

Look closely though, the law has a twist we didn't see coming until we read it ourselves.  This law is not concerned with vendors who avoid sales tax collection by honoring fraudulent or incomplete exemption certificates.

Here, the enhanced penalties are for vendors who refuse to honor valid exemption certificates.  The new law enhances the penalties for charging sales tax in opposition to a valid exemption certificate.  Not what you thought, is it?   Read on.

This particular enhancement has some real teeth:


A second or subsequent violation of this subsection shall be unlawful and constitute a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per such offense, in addition to any administrative fine. The Tax Commission shall refer any vendor who has more than once willfully or intentionally refused to honor the exemption, whether fined or not, to the district attorney where the vendor is located for prosecution."68 O.S. 2001 Sec. 1361.1 (B.)

Whoa!  In the everyday world of state and local words like "misdemeanor" or "district attorney" or "prosecution" are thankfully rare.  Even when we do hear about one or the other or the other, the story generally relates to under-reporting or under-remitting type of, ahem, incident.

Here, we see the threat of criminal prosecution for collecting the sales tax in contravention of a valid exemption certificate. 


Wait! There's more:


"  For the purposes of this subsection, "vendor" means any individual most responsible for supervising, and the conduct of, any employee who intentionally refuses to honor the exemption including, but not limited to, a manager, owner, partner or corporate officer."  68 O.S. 2001 Sec. 1361.1 (B.)


It looks like the liability under this law may extend to the managers or officers as well as owners of a violating vendor.   Vendors must have "actual knowledge" that a customer has a valid exemption certificate and then "willfully" or "intentionally" refuse to honor the certificate in order for the really bad stuff to kick in.

Quotes added because that is what the law says, but also to highlight the rather subjective nature of the requirements for "prosecution".   Since the law lacks precision, vendors who have concerns about their own exemption certificate management might consider automating exemption certificate management in an effort to avoid miscalcualtion of sales taxes on exempt customer's invoices, deliberately or not.  (Hint, hint, hint...)

Of course, no one can predict future enforcement of any new rule or reg.  And believe us, we aren't exactly a bunch of chicken littles, the sky is not falling on Oklahoma vendors. And no one is expecting the OK Tax Comminssion to start throwing the book at every vendor who issues a taxable invoice to an exempt customer.  But there is a bigger point.

The big point?  This rule illustrates the need for effective, accurate sales tax exemption certificate management.  It might be counter-intuitive for some vendors to imagine the need for criminal penalties for over-collection of sales taxes, but in Oklahoma at least, thats the new rule in town

Finally: This blog does not constitute legal advice.  This blog is intended to be a source of general sales tax information, not a source of legal advice.  Please consult with your tax and legal professionals to let them apply the law to your specific facts and circumstances.