We previously reported on the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Directive 17-1 (the “Directive”), setting forth the Department’s bright-line nexus threshold for internet vendors, effective July 1, 2017. Specifically, the Directive provides that an internet vendor with a principal place of business located outside of Massachusetts is required to register, collect and remit Massachusetts sales or use tax with respect to its Massachusetts sales if it: (1) had Massachusetts sales in excess of $500,000 during the…
On April 3, 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (the “Department”) issued Directive 17-1 (the “Directive”), setting forth the Department’s bright-line nexus threshold for internet vendors, effective July 1, 2017. Specifically, the Directive provides that an internet vendor with a principal place of business located outside of Massachusetts is required to register, collect and remit Massachusetts sales or use tax with respect to its Massachusetts sales if it: (1) had Massachusetts sales in excess of $500,000 during the preceding calendar year; and (2) made 100 or more sales for delivery into Massachusetts during the preceding calendar year. For the short period between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017, the Department will review whether these sales thresholds were met between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017.
The Arizona Department of Revenue (“Department”) recently made public Letter Ruling 16-011 (“Ruling”), which concluded that a taxpayer’s gross income from electronic transaction processing services that involved the use of software was not taxable for Arizona transaction privilege tax (“TPT”) purposes. The Department opined that the electronic transaction processing services were not taxable as a rental of tangible personal property because the taxpayer’s customers did not have the “exclusive control” over the software required for a taxable rental. This Ruling is significant because the Department, like revenue departments in several other states (including New York), has historically concluded that online services involving the remote access or use of software were subject to the TPT as a rental of tangible personal property, without analyzing the degree of control the customer had over the software.
In Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Dkt. No. TC 5197 (Oregon Tax Ct. Dec. 23, 2016), the Oregon Tax Court held that physical presence was unnecessary to establish nexus for corporate excise and corporate income tax purposes. As we reported last month, the Ohio Supreme Court similarly upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s factor presence (or, economic nexus) standard for purposes of the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax. Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7760 (Ohio 2016). (See our previous post, Ohio Supreme Court Physical Presence Not Required for Commercial Activity Tax.)