Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the physical presence nexus requirement for state sales and use taxes in South Dakota v. Wayfair, 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018), taxpayers and practitioners have questioned the extent to which the Court’s holding applies to locally administered sales and use taxes. This question is often rooted in the Court’s statement in Wayfair that “States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce” and its reference to Pike v.…
Beginning November 1, 2021, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) will be offering taxpayers the opportunity to participate in a voluntary transfer pricing “managed audit” program (the “Program”). Pursuant to a recently released Department information bulletin, the purpose of the Program is to: Create an efficient and expedited resolution for corporate tax audits when transfer pricing issues exist; andProvide certainty and uniformity to taxpayers on the resolution of transfer pricing issues for open audit periods…
On April 30, 2021, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held in Travelocity.com LP v. Comptroller of Md., No. 14, 2021 Md. LEXIS 200 (Apr. 30, 2021), that the taxpayer, an online travel company, was not required to collect and remit state sales and use tax prior to the enactment of Maryland’s accommodations intermediary law in 2015. This ruling by the state’s highest court, which overruled the lower courts’ decisions, helps clarify the “pre-accommodations intermediary law” tax obligations of online travel companies, and may also be helpful in understanding the impact of marketplace facilitator law enactments more generally.
In an order released in July 2021, the Illinois Tax Tribunal denied a taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment in a “unitary business” case, finding that there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the taxpayer was engaged in a unitary business with a company that the taxpayer sold. See Christopher v. Illinois Dep’t of Rev., 19 TT 131 (Ill. Tax Trib. Nov. 24, 2020, released July 2021). The taxpayer, T. Christopher Holding Company (“Holding Company”), claimed that it was not unitary with Vogue International, LLC (“Operating Company”), and thus its gain from the sale of Operating Company could not be included in Holding Company’s Illinois business income under U.S. constitutional principles and Illinois law. However, the Tribunal found that the Illinois Department of Revenue (“Department”) had presented sufficient evidence to establish a disputed issue of material fact that rendered summary judgment on this issue inappropriate.