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.