Category

Sales Tax

Three (3) Tax Strategies for E-Commerce Sellers: Strategies You Could Use When Working With Taxes

By | Sales Tax, Uncategorized | No Comments

As an e-commerce seller, you are responsible for understanding and implementing the correct tax strategies to minimize your tax liability. This blog post will discuss three common tax strategies that sellers can use to reduce their taxable income. Implementing these strategies can help you save money and comply with the law.

1. Understand Your Tax Obligations As An E-commerce Seller

The IRS has particular rules when it comes to taxes and e-commerce. As an online seller, it is your responsibility to understand these rules and comply with them.

One of the most important things to understand is that you are responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax on your transactions. This includes any items that you sell through your website and any third-party platforms like eBay or Amazon.

Collecting and remitting sales tax can be a complex process, so it’s vital to seek professional help if you’re unsure how to handle it. There are many Tax Strategies available for e-commerce sellers, so finding one that works for you is crucial.

Don’t let the complexity of taxes scare you away from selling online – with the correct Tax Strategy in place, you can be sure that you’re compliant and won’t run into any problems down the road.

2. Deduct Expenses Related To Your Business

If you sell products online, you can use a few tax strategies to deduct expenses related to your business. As an e-commerce seller, you can deduct the cost of goods sold (COGS) and other business expenses like shipping, marketing, and website development costs.

To deduct the cost of goods sold (COGS), you’ll need to keep track of all the inventory you purchase for resale and the costs associated with each item. When it comes time to file your taxes, you’ll calculate the COGS for each product and deduct that amount from your total sales.

Other business expenses like shipping, marketing, and website development costs can also be deducted from your total sales. To deduct these expenses, you’ll need to keep track of all the receipts and invoices associated with each expense. When it comes time to file your taxes, you’ll total up all these expenses and deduct them from your total sales.

3. Use The Correct Accounting Method For Your Business

As a business owner, it’s essential to use the correct accounting method to keep track of your finances. Depending on the type of business, there are different methods you can use. Tax strategies also come into play when choosing an accounting method:

E-commerce sellers have a few options when it comes to accounting methods. The most common is the accrual basis, which recognizes revenue when products are shipped to customers. This is the preferred method for businesses that sell physical goods because it provides a more accurate picture of sales and expenses.

Another option for e-commerce sellers is the cash basis, which only recognizes revenue and expenses when exchanging money. This method is more straightforward and may suit low sales volume businesses or for selling digital products.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on State Tax Revenue

By | Sales Tax, Uncategorized | No Comments

COVID-19 pandemic seems to play havoc with the economy and taxes. The impact has been huge on state and local tax revenues. The level of impact is no less severe than any other recession. If you go by statistics, you will find that the pandemic has adversely impacted the economy, shrinking state sales tax revenue by about $6 billion. This amounts to 21 percent compared to the revenue during the same period last year. A lockdown situation, with closed businesses, rising coronavirus causalities, and extension of sales tax filing and payment deadlines have all contributed to this quagmire.

The Real Impact on State Tax Revenue

Total state tax revenue shot to the highest level since the 2007-09 recession during the final quarter of 2019. Thanks to the tax collection growth during this period post-recession that each state was able to allocate its funds for the economic shocks inflicted by the pandemic.

As more people are forced to stay home, sales tax revenues have come down drastically due to a lowered consumption rate. That means a drop in taxes and fees imposed on airports, hotels, and highway tolls. Therefore, tax revenue has dropped drastically due to a lowering of fees imposed on the travel and tourism industry. There has been a drastic reduction in the revenue generated from taxes. Further, other sources of state revenue, such as vehicle registration fees, transportation funds, and gas taxes, are declining.

Similar to economic recessions, the pandemic has adversely affected state and local revenues. However, the decline in income tax revenue has not been drastic. The reason is that employment losses are primarily concentrated on low-wage workers, who contribute less to the income tax coffer.

Blame the coronavirus pandemic for triggering a severe state budget crisis. State revenues are falling rapidly while there has been a spike in the costs of commodities as there is no production and many businesses are shut down. Add to this, the rising unemployment rate and the economy is declining rapidly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Substantial State Tax Revenue Shortfalls for 2020, 2021

The rapidly declining state revenue projections are a reminder of the times we are all set for in the near future due to the pandemic-induced downturn.

States grapple with the financial crisis and are working hard to balance overstressed budgets. The crisis is agitated due to no to low productivity, rising need for healthcare services, and allocation of separate funds to fight against the pandemic.

State and local income tax revenues are expected to drop to 7.5 percent or $37 billion in 2021 as the pandemic has taken a toll on revenues.

When the pandemic struck, states began to balance their budgets by making cuts and tapping reserves. While COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc with life, the stock market has remained unaffected thus far and the job loss among high-wage earners has not been much. This has ensured that revenues have not dropped by as much as were anticipated in some states. But that does not mean there have not been revenue shortfalls for states. With the federal aid for businesses ending, the crisis might deepen further.

States Imposing Cuts; Need Federal Help

State estimates project a drastic drop in revenues for the present fiscal year beginning July 1.

To make matters worse for states with oil-related industries, the coronavirus recession has brought along a decline in economic activity. As a result, tax collections have suffered due to plunging oil prices.

It remains to be seen as to how long states can survive on their budget reserves, including rainy day funds. Sadly, things might become worse financially for state tax revenue if more employees are laid off, public services are cut, and government contracts for businesses are canceled. States might be forced to impose damaging cuts. Georgia, Maryland, and Florida have already started with the cuts on schools, colleges, and behavioral health.

Now states look up to federal policymakers to provide assistance to deal with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Atlanta tax services; Interstate Tax Strategies, P.C. is your “go-to” tax service provider for multistate sales and use tax.  Though we are located in Atlanta, we provide tax services to companies throughout the U.S. with single state and multistate sales and use tax issues. Atlanta is the home to countless multistate businesses. Sadly, only a small percent of these businesses get the tax services needed to safeguard their company from the risks posed by this complicated area of taxation. Most CPAs don’t offer the comprehensive or strategic tax services offered by Interstate Tax Strategies, P.C.

Is Too Much SALT Liability Making Your Business Unappetizing?

By | Sales Tax, Uncategorized | No Comments

February 2020
By Ned A. Lenhart, MBA CPA
Interstate Tax Strategies, P.C

Is your business sitting on a state tax time-bomb that could explode at any minute?   Do you even know?  Business owners and investors dream of the day when they sell their business for a high cash-flow or earnings multiple. Successful business exits are life-changing for the owners and are the tangible reward for their dedication in building an enterprise appetizing to someone else. Exit strategies are generally structured as “asset” or “equity” sales. There are tax, legal, and business benefits and pitfalls to both types of exit strategies which require sellers and buyers to carefully evaluate the type of ‘deal’ best suited for the future operations of the organization and for the parties involved.  Regardless which structure is chosen, no seller wants to be surprised about unknown and undisclosed state and local tax (SALT) liabilities that may reduce the business sales price and cost precious time and money to fix.  The time has come for business sellers to take control of this SALT due diligence process.  Identifying and correcting SALT liabilities early can increase the target company’s value and streamline the business exit transaction.   

Stock or equity sales involve the sale of the owner’s interest in the underlying assets and liabilities of the target enterprise.  This normally requires the new business owner to assume most the business liabilities of the target.  To avoid assuming these liabilities, transactions can be structured as an asset sale where all or part of the assets (tangible and intangible) of the entity are acquired and certain specific liabilities are assumed.  General liabilities of the business remain with the surviving business entity and its owners.    

Successor Liability

By structuring the transaction as an asset sale, most advisors believe that all of the known and unknown liabilities of the seller remain with the seller and are not transferred to the asset purchaser.  While this strategy is generally true for most general business liabilities, it is NOT TRUE concerning known and unknown state and local tax (SALT) liabilities.  The legal theory governing the transfer of SALT liabilities from the asset seller to the asset purchaser is known as ‘successor liability’.  Nearly every state considers the business asset purchaser to inherit any known or unknown SALT liabilities of seller unless specific statutory procedures are followed to eliminate the successor liability.  State law does not generally allow the buyer and the seller to contractually limit successor liability or to put dollar limits on how much liability is assumed by the purchaser.    

Buy-Side SALT Due Diligence

To identify and quantify SALT liabilities (primarily sales tax), asset purchasers generally include a specific SALT data request and work plan as part of their tax due diligence process.  Having conducted buy-side sales tax due diligence for 25 years, the process generally includes a detailed review of the target’s multistate business activities, a full understanding of the goods and services sold by the target, scrutiny of current tax returns filed, analysis of exemption certificates, a review of open or planned state tax audits, and a detailed review of current sales tax collection rules and procedures.   Depending on the business being evaluated, SALT due diligence procedures can be completed quickly or may be quite protracted and detailed.  Quite often, buy-side sales SALT due diligence reveals problems, risks, and undisclosed liabilities.  SALT liabilities identified by the purchaser usually means less money going into the pockets of the seller and a slower close.  In some cases, the SALT liability can be so large that the deal is cancelled.  More often, the SALT liabilities identified are not so material that they kill the deal, but they are large enough to require an escrow of funds until the problem is resolved.    

It is surprising how many sellers are unaware that there is any SALT problem at all.  Once the liability is identified and quantified, the purchaser will generally control how and who will resolve the SALT problem.  In many cases, the SALT liability is added to the general escrow amount and held back by the purchaser until the seller resolves the problem.  In more dramatic cases, the purchaser may actually reduce the price they are willing to pay for the assets being acquired.  Either situation can lead to less money going to the seller and a delay in closing the deal and getting paid for the assets they are selling. The normal SALT due-diligence procedures put the seller on the defense and allows the purchaser to dictate the terms of resolving the problem.

Sell-Side SALT Diligence

The time has comefor sellers to become proactive and take control their SALT exposure in advance of selling their business.   There is no excuse for a potential buyer of your business to be the first to tell you that your SALT procedures are inadequate and that your business has a material contingent liability.  Sell-side SALT diligence must be part of a seller’s exit planning process so there are no surprises when the buyer conducts their SALT diligence.  Identifying and resolving SALT issues before buyers starts their review will maximum the price you get for your business and streamline the closing process. 

Business sellers normally work with brokers and business valuation specialist in advance of actually putting their business on the market.  These professionals examine each element of the business and coach the seller on strategies to maximize the value of their business and make it attractive and appetizing to potential investors and purchasers.  Using these valuation, HR, IT, and financial professionals can add significant cash to the pocket of the seller and provide a significant ROI on the cost of these efforts.  At some point in this business assessment process, the sellers must devote intentional effort to proactively determining their SALT liability.  This may include sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, and other SALT liabilities that normally survive an asset sale and absolutely survive an equity sale.   

Sell-side SALT diligence should be started 12 months before any proposed transaction.  I suggest this for several reasons.  First, depending on the sophistication of the seller, it may take some period of time to gather the required information specific to the SALT diligence.  The data needed for this review may not be easy to gather, especially if the review is for multiple years and requires the use of IT resources to obtain. In most cases, there is no statute of limitation for unpaid taxes, so a review of four or more years is quite common. 

Second, if the review identifies significant SALT liabilities and compliance errors, it may take several months to quantify and resolve the specific issues.  One of the primary methods used to resolve historical liabilities is by engaging in a process called “voluntary disclosure”.  This will be discussed in more detail below, but the voluntary disclosure procedure may take three to six months to complete.  

Finally, if new SALT compliance procedures are required, it may take several months to get billing systems integrated into new tax software and for other compliance procedures to be implemented and for A/R and sales personnel to be trained concerning new SALT compliance rule. A proper documentation of these processes must be developed and provided to the purchaser. Finding and fixing SALT errors before a potential buyer may improve the overall profitability of your business and increase the sales price.  

Even if no material deficiencies are identified during the sell-side due SALT diligence, a report showing the processes conducted, the documents reviewed, and the basis for the conclusions reached may provide the buyer with sufficient comfort that the buy-side SALT diligence can be streamlined.  This analysis also shows the potential buyers that the seller was insightful in evaluating these SALT issues which may allow for a better bargaining position by the seller. 

Sell-Side Diligence Procedures

Sell-side due diligence looks a lot like buy-side due diligence.  To coin the old sports adage, ‘the best defense is a good offense’ and that is exactly the case when it comes to seller’s being proactive to identify and resolve SALT issues before buyers start their review.  The goal of buy-side due SALT diligence is to find SALT procedural and compliance mistakes and to portray these errors in the worst possible light. Most diligence work is done for the buyer with the goal of communicating the worst-case scenario to the buyer. The diligence report prepared by the buyer’s team may make assumptions and projections that are not reasonable in an effort to drive the value of the business down or to adjust the sales price lower than it needs to be.  If the seller is not prepared to counter these assertions, they may unknowingly allow the buyer to 

When seller’s initiate their own SALT review as part of the exit planning strategy it allows them to have an advisor who is working just for their interest.  This does not mean that SALT liabilities will be ignored if identified.  Rather, a SALT advisor working for seller can develop strategies for the seller to minimize or even eliminate identified liabilities before the buyer’s team starts their work.  If one of the issues identified by the seller’s SALT advisor involves missing documentation to support untaxed sales, the seller can implement procedures to secure the proper documentation from customers before the buyer’s diligence process starts.  A potential major problem has been averted.   

Because sales tax is industry and transaction specific, it is vital for the seller’s SALT advisor to develop documentation about the sales tax procedures used by the seller, so they are easily communicated to the buyer’s SALT advisor.  SALT due diligence reviews are stressful and time consuming if accurate facts are not properly conveyed to the buyer’s team.  This is especially common with service providers and technology companies where language in the contracts and invoices may be in conflict with what the seller has described their business to be.  For example, if the seller portrays their business as a software-as-a-service (SaaS) enterprise, the buyer may conduct diligence using that SALT rules for SaaS.  If, however, the seller’s SALT advisor believes the seller is providing a web-based service that may not necessarily be treated as SaaS for sales tax purposes, then this must be adequately communicated to the buyer to avoid confusion and the possible calculation of a liability that is not valid. 

Because of some very significant recent changes in the requirements for businesses to be filing sales tax and income tax returns in other states, seller’s may not be fully aware that their compliance obligations have changed.   Having the seller’s SALT advisor evaluate and document the company’s multistate filing obligation in light of these new and evolving standards may assist the buyer in performing their due diligence.  

Finally, because the seller’s SALT advisor will be reviewing most of the same documents as the buyer’s SALT advisor, it can be a time saving effort for these documents to be submitted to the data room when requested by the buyer.  Seller’s that have access to a skilled SALT advisor will be able to defuse or minimize any issues identified by the buyer’s SALT diligence team.  

Voluntary Disclosure Agreements

As mentioned above, one method to resolve a sellers’ SALT liability is through a program called voluntary disclosure.  Most states have procedures whereby unregistered businesses come forward voluntarily to resolve past due taxes. Some states also allow voluntary disclosure agreements for companies that are registered for sales tax.  Most states limit the look back period for which tax is due to three or four years.  In addition to limiting the look back period for which back taxes are owed, the state will abate the penalties due on the tax paid under the voluntary disclosure agreement.  As such, sellers with multiple years of SALT exposure can eliminate their exposure for years prior to the earliest look back period.  Depending on how long the business has operated in that state, the historical savings can be significant.  

Voluntary disclosure is available only when the company seeking an agreement in a specific state has not been contacted by that state concerning the tax liability.  If the seller was contacted previously by the state or is under audit, there is no possibility of completing the voluntary disclosure agreement.  

Conclusion

For decades, SALT due diligence was solely the territory of the business acquirer.    The power held by the buyer in this due diligence process put the sellers on the defense and positioned the buyer to control the quantification of the SALT liability and the tax resolution.  With the advent of seller focused business exit planning consulting services, the time has come for sellers to include SALT diligence as part of their exit planning process. Unknown liabilities can make your business “SALty” and maybe unappetizing to some buyers.  Knowing how “SALTy” your business is before the buyer starts reviewing your SALT documents and tax filings can position the you (the seller) to take control of the liability and to resolve any material issues before the buyer completes their business proposal.  Identifying and tackling SALT liabilities before your business is sold allows you to be in control of the process and may put more money in your pocket at the closing.      

For more information concerning this topic, please contact me at nlenhart@salestaxstrategies.com for a free 30 minute discussion. 

Wayfair Dramatically Changes Drop Shipment

By | Sales Tax, Uncategorized | One Comment

Sales Tax Obligations

Article written by Ned Lenhart at Interstate Tax Strategies.

drop shipment article

Most of the business community is now aware that the U. S. Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Wayfair, Inc. 138 S. Ct. 2080, (2018) (“Wayfair”), greatly expanded the authority states have to require out-of-state businesses to collect and remit sales tax on taxable sales made into their state.  This opinion was issued on June 21, 2018.  As I outline below, the Wayfairopinion also allows states to impose other sales tax compliance obligations on companies that don’t generally make taxable sales.  The full impact of the Wayfairdecision is still being evaluated by states and taxpayers, but some aspects of the Wayfair decision are clear and all companies need to analyze the impact of this decision in light of their current business practices. 

As of January 1, 2019, 31 states will have implemented some form of ‘economic nexus’ rule. By mid-2019 each of the 46 jurisdictions (45 states and D.C.) that have a sales tax will have some type of economic nexus rule. Under these rules, companies with sales into the taxing state exceeding some state specific threshold (i.e. $100,000, $250,000, or $500,000) are deemed to have nexus in the state even though the company does not have any type of physical presence in the taxing state. 

Much of the attention to date on analyzing Wayfairhas been directed to companies selling at retail to end-users.  In these cases, remote retailers with economic nexus in the taxing state are obligated to collect tax on sales shipped into the taxing state.  My focus of concern in this posting is on the impact Wayfairhas on wholesalers in general and drop-shippers in particular. 

Basic Drop Shipment Sales Tax Rules (Pre-Wayfair)

Drop shipments or third-party shipments are a mainstay in the supply chain fulfillment mechanism for both wholesale and retail sales.  A drop shipment transaction involves at least three separate participants and at least two separate sales.  For example, “Retailer”, located only in Georgia, accepts an electronic order from a customer (“Customer”) where customer requests the product be delivered to its Indiana location.  Retailer does not currently have Customer’s item in stock, so Retailer contacts its supplier (“Supplier”) and instructs Supplier to ship the product directly to Retailer’s customer in Indiana. Supplier is only located in Florida.  Supplier ships via common carrier the product to Indiana from its Florida inventory. Supplier invoices Retailer $500 for the product it sold to Retailer but shipped to Indiana. Retailer invoices Customer $675 for the product it sold to them.  For purposes of this example, we will assume that Customer is the end-user of the product being purchased. 

In this example there are two separate sales.  The first sale occurs when Supplier sells the product to Retailer. Retailer cannot sell the product to Customer until it has first purchased the property from Supplier.  The second sale happens when Retailer sells the product to Customer.  Both sales occur when the property is delivered to Customer’s door step in Indiana.  The sale from Supplier to Retailer is a nontaxable “sale for resale” and the sale from Retailer to Customer is a taxable retail sale.  Because Retailer does not have physical presence in Indiana, Retailer believes it does not need to collect sales tax from the Indiana customer. Further, because Supplier does not have a physical presence in Indiana it also believes it does not need to charge tax on this sale or collect an Indiana resale certificates. The only hope the state of Indiana has for collecting the sales tax on this transaction falls to Customer to pay the use tax directly to the Indiana Department of Revenue.  

Basic Drop Shipment Sales Tax Compliance–Post-Wayfair 

Under the physical presence nexus standards in place for the past 26 years, the tax collection assumptions expressed above by Retailer and Supplier are likely accurate.  However, under the economic nexus rules embraced under the Wayfair doctrine, the sales tax dynamics of this drop shipment transaction have changed.   The state of Indiana is one of the 31 states that has adopted (as of January 1, 2019) rules concerning when companies have created sales tax economic nexus in the state only having sales which exceed a certain minimum dollar threshold in the taxing state.  Indiana’s nexus threshold is $100,000 of sales or 200 separate transactions per year. 

If we change our example a bit by assuming that “Supplier” and “Retailer” each have Indiana sales in excess of the $100,000 economic nexus threshold, the drop shipment transaction profiled above would change in the following respect. 

  1. Supplier would require Retailer to provide a resale certificate that is valid in Indiana.  Fortunately, Indiana will accept the Georgia resale certificate (Retailer’s home state) from Retailer.  This will allow the initial sale of property to be exempt from Indiana sales tax as a ‘sale for resale’.  If Supplier does not have a valid resale certificate from Retailer, then Supplier will be obligated to charge sales tax to Retailer on this initial sale.  
  2. Because Retailer is selling to an end-user in Indiana and because Retailer has Indiana economic nexus with the state of Indiana, Retailer is be required to register with the Indiana Department of Revenue and collect the 7% sales tax on the sale it makes to Customer. 

If the drop shipment described above were the only one that Retailer and Supplier had, then this scenario is easy to administer.  In reality, this drop shipment scenario happens dozens or hundreds of times a day for both Supplier and Retailer and involves shipments to customers in many different states.  Supplier likely drop ships property for multiple Retailers to multiple states in any given day.  Retailer likely has multiple suppliers shipping products to customers in multiple states in any given day.  As a seller with possible economic nexus in multiples states, Retailer’s sales tax obligations have changed significantly under the Wayfair rule. 

Advanced Drop Shipment and Sales Tax Compliance-Post Wayfair 

For companies like Supplier the impact of Wayfairis subtle but may create significant issues for companies that provide drop shipment services. Most states consider all sales of tangible personal property to be taxable until the seller obtains an exemption certificate from its customer documenting the sale as not taxable. This resale certificate must be valid in the state to which the property is shipped since that is the state where the sale from the Supplier to the Retailer occurs.  In most cases, the certificate provided is a resale exemption certificate.   Failure to have a resale exemption certificate from Retailer that is valid in the destination state causes the seller (Supplier in our example) to be liable for collecting sales tax on the sale.  If tax is not charged and it is determined under audit that Supplier did not have a valid resale certificate, the Supplier will likely be assessed back sales tax and interest on the price charged on the drop shipment sale made to the Retailer.  

In many cases, the destination state will accept the ‘home state resale certificate’ or the ‘home state registration number’.  Indiana, as used in our example is one of these states. So long as the Supplier has the home state resale certificate from Retailer, Supplier is protected and has no obligation to collect tax.  There are 36 jurisdictions that accept this ‘home state’ registration number or some other alternative documentation to support the resale claim. 

The issues become more serious and a bit more complicated for Supplier and Retailer in the 10 jurisdictions that do not accept the home state registration number or resale certificate.  Suppliers making drop shipments to these states must insist on receiving resale certificates valid in the ‘ship to state”.  In most cases, this requires Retailer to register with the ship-to state and obtain a registration number which is used on the state specific resale exemption certificate. (Note: some states permit the use of the Multijurisdictional Resale Certificate, but it must include the registration number issued by the ship-to-state). Jurisdictions that do not generally accept the home-state resale certificate include: California, D.C. Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Washington.

There may be situations where Supplier exceeds the economic nexus threshold in the ship-to-state, but Retailer has not created economic nexus in the ship-to-state.  Assume that Retailer (from the above example) instructs Supplier to drop ship products to a customer in Washington. Washington has a $100,000 sales threshold economic nexus and Supplier is registered in Washington because its total sales exceed that amount.  Retailer, however, only has $30,000 of sales per-year in Washington and does not meet that economic nexus threshold and therefore is not registered.  Because Washington will not accept the Georgia home-state resale certificate from Retailer, Supplier must charge Retailer sales tax on the wholesale price of the products it drop-ships to Washington.  To avoid being charged this tax, Retailer must register with the Washington Department of Revenue and provide Supplier with a valid resale certificate once the registration is processed (which may take 30 days or more to complete).  Once registered with the Washington Department of Revenue, Retailer will be obligated to collect tax on allsales shipped to customers in Washington even though Retailer does not meet the economic nexus threshold of the state. 

This presents a significant dilemma for small retailers. Under the rules in states that do not accept the home state resale certificate but have economic nexus rules in place, retailers that fall below the thresholds will be required to obtain a sales tax registration in that state to provide a valid resale certificate and avoid being charged sales tax by their supplier.  In some cases, it may be more economical for retailers to simply pay the tax to the supplier rather than to incur the compliance costs related to collecting and remitting the sales tax. Requiring retailers under the economic nexus threshold to secure a Washington registration number so that a valid resale certificate can be issued also appears to violate the benefit of imposing the $100,000 sales level which is supposed to provide a ‘safe harbor’ for small businesses.   

If Supplier has economic nexus with a state that does not accept a home state resale certificate and it does not charge sales tax to their customer, the Supplier will be liable for sales tax due to that state. Once Supplier obtains economic nexus in Washington, or any other state that does not accept home state resale certificates, it is obligated to collect tax on all sales shipped to that state unless the Retailer provides a resale certificates that is valid in the delivery state.  As noted earlier, if the ship-to state does not accept the ‘home state’ resale certificate, retailers must register with the taxing state to obtain a registration number that can legally be used on a resale certificate.  Once registered, tax must be collected on all future sales shipped to customers located in that state; not just those sales that are drop shipped into the state. 

As countless direct and drop shipments are made daily into states that do not accept home state resale certificates by companies having economic nexus, the sales tax risk is significant and real if these shippers do not immediately implement policies to require the correct resale certificate at the time the sale is made.  States like California are vigilant in enforcing this rule on audit and are constantly looking for companies that should be registered for sales tax but are not. 

Conclusion

Retailers and suppliers making drop shipments into states with the economic nexus rules are now required to comply with a wide variety of rules that, heretofore, they have not been required to follow.  Failure to understand the economic nexus rules and to evaluate the obligations your company has for collecting resale certificates or for charging sales tax will create a real and potentially material financial liability for your company.  All wholesalers and retailers MUSTcarefully evaluate the drop shipment relationships they have and adjust their sales tax policies as needed to meet the rules in states that do not accept home state resale certificates.  

We Will Deal with Sales Tax When We Get Bigger

By | Sales Tax, Uncategorized | No Comments

Article written by Ned Lenhart at Interstate Tax Strategies.

snellville tax companyI recently met with a growing technology company that had received correspondence from a state concerning its failure to register to collect sales tax on taxable sales made to customers in that state.  Correspondence like this is never a good thing.  Rather than dealing promptly with the notice, the company ignored the state’s request to complete and return the nexus questionnaire.  A few months went by and the second notice was received from the state.  This notice had a shorter response date and outlined the consequences if the company did not respond.  The company, again, did not respond.  True to its word, the state issued jeopardy assessments and demand notices to pay.  That’s when I got a call from the company!

When I finally met with the company I was astounded by their explanations about why they didn’t take the notices from the state seriously.  Their belief was that they were too small of a company to be of any concern to the state and that the state was just on a fishing expedition to see who they could force into collecting sales tax. If they didn’t respond, the state would just go away.  Not a great strategy for dealing with any state.

I also learned that the company had always known that they would need to deal with sales tax but that while they were small, they believed the risk of not addressing the issue was not high and any exposure would be limited.  That may have been an appropriate strategy 8 years ago, but at some point, they needed to take serious steps at understanding what needed to be done.  While the business, as a whole, may not have been that large, the state that was sending the requests represented 20% of the company’s sales.  It was also a state that taxes various SaaS and data processing services.   Further, the company had nexus in the state for many years by the presence of employees doing sales and implementation work.

I totally understand that small companies don’t consider sales tax to be a priority and I totally understand that the rules around nexus and product taxability can be confusing. However, at some point, even small business need to assess their situation and determine if ‘doing nothing’ is really the right long-term strategy when it comes to sales tax.  As the company found out, even small companies can have big sales tax problems in one or two states.  If 20% of your sales are not taxed in one state for several years, that adds up to be a lot of taxable sales and a lot of tax exposure. Because the statute of limitations normally applies only when tax returns are filed, there is no legal limitation in most states for how far back states can assess for unpaid tax.   More disturbing was that fact that they were working with a financial consultant who knew that sales tax would have to be dealt with, but only after the company got bigger.

My word of caution to all ‘small businesses’ (however you would define that), is to take sales tax compliance seriously.  That does not necessarily mean that you register in every state, but you must be strategic about understanding where your company has nexus (either physical nexus or economic nexus), what tax rules apply to the goods and services you sell, and whether your customers are taxable or exempt.  It does not take too many years for even a small business to incur significant tax liabilities in state.  Don’t assume that your business is “too small” to have a sales tax obligation or to have some material historical sales tax liability.  The states are serious when it comes to capturing as much sales tax revenue as they can, and they really don’t care how small your business may be.  In many cases, the taxes remitted by a low number of small businesses can exceed the tax collected by one large company.

Finally, if your business is contacted by a state, take the notice seriously.  The states keep very close track of what companies have been contacted and they routinely follow up.  It may not be immediate, but states generally do not just let unanswered correspondence die.  In many cases, the states may know more about your business than you think, so make sure you answer correspondence truthfully.  Be sure to seek professional assistance if you have any questions about what the state is asking.

 

 

What Auditors Need to Understand about South Dakota vs Wayfair

By | Quill, Sales Tax, Tax Strategy | No Comments

Ned A. Lenhart, MBA CPA | https://www.salestaxstrategies.com

What is Nexus?

Nexus is the term commonly used to mean the legal connection a non-resident company (seller) has with another state (taxing state) that allows the taxing state to legally force seller to obey a variety of state taxing state laws concerning sales tax, income tax, or franchise tax.  Nexus has nothing to do with the actual taxation of the property or service being sold.  Nexus only refers to the ability a taxing state has over a non-resident seller to legally compel or force the seller to comply with the taxing state law.

Old Nexus Rule (Quill):

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that non-resident sellers must have some minimum physical presence in the state before creating sales tax nexus in taxing state. Allowed many e-commerce companies to legally avoid collecting sales tax in customer state.  States took dramatic steps to change laws on what constituted physical nexus.

New Nexus Rule (Wayfair):

U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2018 overturned Quill.  Stated that rule was unfair and created an unintended benefit for e-commerce companies. Ruled that states no longer need to prove a physical connection before nexus is created.  Ruled that the South Dakota statute that created ‘economic nexus’ provided a balanced approach to a non-physical nexus rule. South Dakota rule stated that remote sellers with $100,000 of sales or 200 transactions in the state had nexus and were obligated to comply with sales tax law.  26 states have similar laws and it is expected that most states will adopt similar rules.  U.S. Congress may also develop uniformity rules and rules on retroactivity.  Allows states to use both the physical nexus rule and the economic nexus rule.

Who is impacted?

Wayfair rule applies to all companies with customers and revenue in multiple states, not just e-commerce remote sellers. Retailers, wholesalers, service providers, technology companies, etc.

What is the Significance of the South Dakota vs Wayfair Case for Auditors?

The South Dakota vs Wayfair case is crucial for auditors as it has significant implications for businesses. After this ruling, auditors must inform their clients about the new tax laws and regulations affecting their operations. A wayfair client letter must clearly outline the potential impact on their financial reporting and compliance requirements.

How Does Wayfair’s Drop Shipment Change Impact Auditors’ Understanding of South Dakota vs Wayfair?

Wayfair drop shipment changes have significant implications for auditors’ understanding of the South Dakota vs Wayfair case. These changes may require auditors to reevaluate how they assess sales tax nexus and compliance, as well as understand the impact of drop shipment arrangements on Wayfair’s tax obligations.

Questions to ask?

Client responsibitlies Risks Affected industries  

Wayfair Client Letter

By | Quill, Sales Tax, Tax Strategy | No Comments
Dear Client: On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, a landmark sales and use tax nexus case that will have implications for many online sellers and multistate businesses. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that a state can require an out-of-state seller to collect sales or use tax on sales to customers in that state, even though the seller lacks an in-state physical presence. Under certain circumstances, an economic or virtual presence can create nexus (a sufficient connection with the state), subjecting a seller to tax collection and remittance requirements in a state. In some cases, a company’s electronic apps or website tracking “cookies” may be considered a nexus-creating presence in a state.

Background

In Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a South Dakota law (S.D. Codified Laws § 10-64-1, et al.) that requires certain remote sellers to register for, collect, and remit South Dakota sales tax. Under the law, a remote seller has sales tax nexus with South Dakota if the seller, in the current or previous calendar year:
  • had gross revenue from sales of taxable goods and services delivered into the state exceeding $100,000; or
  • sold taxable goods and services for delivery into the state in 200 or more separate transactions.1
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a seller have “substantial nexus” with a state before the state can require the seller to collect and remit sales and use taxes. Historically, under a precedent affirmed in the 1992 case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, this nexus depended on whether the seller had a physical presence in the state. The presence could be through the company’s activities or property, or through the activities of its agents in the state. Over time, states have stretched the boundary of this standard by asserting “click through” nexus and affiliate nexus. Now “economic” nexus policies, like the South Dakota law in Wayfair, stretch it further still, with states asserting jurisdiction to impose sales tax collection responsibilities on companies that meet certain sales thresholds. In some states, the use of a company’s apps or website tracking “cookies” by in-state customers may create nexus.

Considerations for Sellers

Sales and Use Tax Obligations The Wayfair decision affects companies doing business in thousands of state and local tax-collecting jurisdictions across the country. The most immediate impact will be on sellers with a significant virtual or economic presence in a state that asserts economic nexus. Sellers delivering taxable products or services into South Dakota (and other economic nexus states) will need to determine if they surpassed the dollar amount or transaction volume thresholds for establishing nexus with the state. Sellers will need to do this analysis for each state that has adopted an economic nexus threshold policy, including determining whether each product sold is taxable or nontaxable. Some of these economic nexus policies may be vulnerable to attack under the Court’s analysis in Wayfair, and companies may wish to consult with tax advisors who can help them make the decision whether to comply with or challenge the rules. In addition, some states are beginning to enact laws targeting so-called “marketplace facilitators” and requiring that they collect tax on sales made by third-party sellers on the facilitator’s platform if the gross receipts from those transactions exceeds an annual threshold and other conditions are met. Sellers should be prepared for states to adopt and aggressively enforce expanded nexus provisions, although future legal challenges or Congressional action could limit the scope of the Court’s decision. Notice and Reporting Requirements A growing number of states, led by Colorado, recently enacted complex use tax notice and reporting requirements for remote sellers. Under these laws, remote sellers must provide information to customers about potential use tax liability and report transaction data to the state. Noncompliance can result in stiff per-occurrence penalties. A few states, such as Pennsylvania, explicitly provide an election between the notice and reporting regime and voluntary sales tax registration.

Other Considerations

Expanded sales tax nexus may have far-reaching effects for businesses, beyond collection and remittance of the sales tax itself. In the realm of business acquisitions, state “successor liability” laws typically impose notice, withholding, and tax clearance requirements that limit the purchaser’s liability for unpaid sales tax liabilities of the seller in certain business asset acquisitions. As states begin to more aggressively assert sales tax nexus, companies contemplating business acquisitions should consult with a tax professional for assistance in navigating complex successor liability laws. Companies should also consider potential financial statement impacts related to sales tax nexus issues.

How Does the South Dakota vs. Wayfair Supreme Court Case Affect Wayfair Clients?

The South Dakota vs. Wayfair Supreme Court case has significant implications for Wayfair clients. The ruling allows states to require online retailers to collect and remit sales tax, impacting Wayfair’s customers’ cost of purchases. This decision changes how Wayfair operates and may affect the prices their clients pay.

Next Steps

We expect state revenue departments to issue guidance regarding the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision in the coming weeks and months, and we will be following those developments closely. In the meantime, if you would like to discuss how the decision may impact your business, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number or email below. Sincerely,     1S.D. Codified Laws § 10-64-2.

FAQ – South Dakota vs. Wayfair Supreme Court Case

By | Quill, Sales Tax, Tax Strategy | No Comments
Frequently Asked Questions Related to South Dakota vs. Wayfair Supreme Court Case by Interstate Tax Strategies On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued is opinion in the landmark case of South Dakota vs. Wayfair. The Court’s decision in Wayfair overturned almost 50 years of precedence concerning sales tax nexus for sellers that do not have a physical location in the customer’s state. I will refer to these companies as ‘remote sellers’. The dust continues to settle on the fallout from this case as both sellers and state tax administrators adjust to these new rules. The following are some common questions that have been asked and my responses to them as it pertains to the new economic nexus rules embraced by the Supreme Court. These changes have the potential to impact every business that has customers in multiple states.

Q: What change to sales tax nexus does the Wayfair decision make?

A: For at least the past 26 years, state tax authorities were barred from forcing sellers of property or taxable services from collecting sales tax on these sales unless the seller had some minimal physical connection with the state. Physical presence could be created by: sending employees or independent contractors into the state to make sales, owning inventory in the state, renting an office in the state, performing services in the state, or delivering property on company vehicles into the state. With the explosion of e-commerce over the past decade, thousands of businesses could make sales of property using internet commerce without having a physical presence outside of their home state. There is also a huge number of foreign sellers that operate in the U.S. Because of the physical nexus requirement established in 1992 in the North Dakota vs. Quill (“Quill”), states could not force these sellers to collect tax. To overcome this problem, several states adopted and enforced laws deeming nexus to exist under an ‘economic nexus’ test rather than a physical nexus test. The states knew these laws would be challenged and that the Supreme Court would eventually weigh in on the issue. The South Dakota law which was reviewed by the Supreme Court deems nexus to exist for remote sellers if they have over $100,000 of South Dakota sales or 200 separate South Dakota transactions during the prior calendar year. If so, these companies must register to collect sales tax. Failure to do so will result in assessment of tax and penalty by the state. To the surprise of most, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this economic nexus test was valid. The Court further stated the Quill decision was no longer valid and the state did not have to prove that taxpayers had a physical presence in their state before they could require tax be collected.

Q. When is the Wayfair decision effective?

A. States that had economic nexus laws on their books when the Wayfair decision was issued are free to being enforcing these laws as they wish. Several states have gone on record that they will not begin enforcing their economic nexus rules until October 1, 2018. This gives companies a chance to evaluate their sales levels in these states and to register in the state if required. Several states have laws that go into effect on January 1, 2019 and these will likely be enforced from that point forward. Many states are planning special legislative sessions to pass some type of economic nexus standard so that they can begin collecting sales tax from qualified remote sellers.

Q. What other states have laws similar to the South Dakota law?

A: As of July 1, 2018, the following states had some type of economic nexus rule in their state: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. More states are expected to be added by the end of 2018.

Q. Does the Wayfair decision only apply to e-commerce sellers?

A: NO! This may be the most important issue to understand. The Wayfair decision applies to all business not just online sellers of property. By eliminating the physical nexus requirement, states that pass some form of economic nexus law are free to require any business that meets the economic nexus test to comply with the sales tax laws of that state. In some cases, this may mean that sales tax must be collected on taxable sales. In other situations, it may mean that remote sellers must collect resale exemption certificates from customers in that state who are not taxable on their purchases in that state. The elimination of the physical nexus requirement will allow states to require some type of compliance from all sellers that meet the economic nexus test of their state. Just because your company does not make taxable sales, does not mean you are not impacted by the Wayfair decision. This decision applies to wholesalers and retailers.

Q. Does physical presence still create nexus under Wayfair?

A: Yes! It appears that the Wayfair decision allows states two opportunities to require remote sellers to collect sales tax or comply in some other way with their state’s sales tax law. For remote sellers with a physical connection in the state, the rules have not likely changed. If a seller does not have physical nexus but exceeds the economic threshold of the state, then nexus may also be created. It appears that the economic nexus thresholds laws are drafted to only apply when some other type of physical nexus does not exist. In fact, the Wayfair case seems to allow states to develop any type of physical nexus requirement they want. Massachusetts has adopted the ‘cookie’ nexus test which deems software ‘cookies’ to create a physical presence in the state if the program is loaded onto the customer’s computer.

Q. Did the Supreme Court automatically adopt the South Dakota economic nexus standard that each state must adopt?

A: Not really. It is beyond the scope of the Court to formally impose a uniform standard on this sort of issue. The Court noted that there must be a balance between the benefit the state receives (tax revenue) and the cost incurred by the out-of-state business to provide that benefit. The Court, while not specifically outlining that balancing test, stated that the features of the South Dakota law met this balancing test. I think that most states will do their best to model the South Dakota law, but states are free to set higher standards if they wish. Some states have set revenue thresholds of $200,000, $250,000, and $500,000. A couple of sates have thresholds of $10,000! Wayfair is not going to be the last court case on the validity of these economic nexus rules.

Q. Does Wayfair only apply to sales tax?

A: No. The physical nexus rules of Quill also applied to taxes that were not based on income, such as franchise taxes, gross receipts taxes, and similar taxes. Under Wayfair, states that have such taxes could easily apply the economic nexus rules to these taxes. Further, many states have used economic nexus tests for income taxes when related to revenue from services or from revenue from intangible property. Many states have adopted these ‘factor present’ test for income tax.

Can You Provide More Information about the South Dakota vs. Wayfair Supreme Court Case?

In the summary of South Dakota vs Wayfair, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota, allowing states to require online retailers to collect sales tax. This decision has significant implications for e-commerce and has sparked debates about the role of states in regulating online sales.

Q: What should remote sellers do now?

A: Every business situation is different. I would first recommend that remote sellers analyze in which states they may have even the slightest physical presence. Under Wayfair, states appear to be able to legally enforce any type of physical nexus with the state, regardless how minor. I would then recommend that remote sellers evaluate their sales levels in all states where they are not currently registered and where they don’t have a physical connection. If sales in those states exceeds $100,000, then further analysis of the state law will be needed to determine any compliance obligation. I would also recommend that wholesalers begin collecting resale certificates from all customers in all states regardless of the sales volume. Failure to have a valid resale certificate on audit could present some serious problems.

South Dakota vs Wayfair | Summary Bulletin

By | Quill, Sales Tax, Tax Strategy | No Comments
From Ned Lenhart, CPA, Interstate Tax Strategies, P.C.

Overview

On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in South Dakota vs. Wayfair, Inc. In this opinion, the Supreme Court stated that the physical nexus requirement established in 1992 in the case of North Dakota vs Quill was not valid. The Quill decision prevented states from requiring remote sellers from collecting sales tax in their states unless the seller had some physical connection with the state.  In most cases, this meant that the seller needed to have salesmen or other employees working in the state, own inventory in the state, or perform services in the state. Some states even adopted statutes that the presence of in electronic ‘cookie’ that resides on the customer’s computer would be enough to create nexus.  In the Wayfairdecision, the Court said that the physical nexus requirement in Quill was no longer a valid basis for preventing a state from legally forcing a remote seller from collecting sales tax in that state on taxable sales made to customers located in that state. The Court endorsed the South Dakota economic nexus rule (but did not necessarily mandate this rule be used) that requires sellers with $100,000 of annual sales or 200 separate transactions be held responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax on taxable sales sent into South Dakota. The Court indicated that states must have a statute in place that balances the cost of compliance against the valid interest the state is attempting to regulate.  As such, the Court indicated that the South Dakota rule, on its face, appears to meet this balancing test.

What Became of the Physical Presence Test?

Over the past 26 years, states have adopted a variety of rules on what constitutes a physical presence in their state for purposes of meeting the Quilltest.  Most of these have been found to be constitutional and have been used by the states to require remote sellers to collect tax. From my reading of the Wayfairopinion, these rules are still valid.  As such, states may require remote sellers with any type of physical nexus to register to collect tax and, for sellers without a physical connection, the states may also adopt various economic nexus rules such as the one adopted by South Dakota.  Even though the Court held that the physical requirement under Quillwas not valid, it did not say that physical presence in the state would   prevent a state from requiring compliance. States now have two options for requiring compliance; the physical standard and the economic standard.

States with Economic nexus rules

The following states have rules like the South Dakota rule; there are state specific nuances, however.   Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.  More states will be added in the coming months as they adopt legislation.

What Are the Key Points in the Summary Bulletin of South Dakota vs Wayfair?

The summary bulletin of South Dakota vs Wayfair highlights the key points that auditors understanding South Dakota Wayfair need to know. These include the impact of the decision on economic nexus, the threshold for sales tax collection, and the need for businesses to comply with state tax laws.

What to do now?

The actions to take now are unique to each company.   I recommend companies reexamine where they have a physical presence of any kind.  If physical presence does not exist, then examine states where revenue is at least $100,000 per-year.  If sales exceed $100,000, determine if the customers you sell to are taxable and if the products and services you sell are taxable in the state. For exempt customers, begin collecting exemption certificates for all exempt sales. If your company has over $100,000 of taxable sales in any of the 21 states listed above, you should consider any historical exposure you may have since the economic nexus standards were adopted and the possibility of registering for prospective registration.

Sales Tax in a Post-Quill World – What Every Company Must Know!

By | Quill, Sales Tax | No Comments

On April 17, 2018 the U. S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of South Dakota vs Wayfair, Inc, Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc. This is Case Number 17-494.   This case is a direct challenge by the State of South Dakota to the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case of North Dakota vs Quill, 504 U.S. 298.   The 1992 case of Quill created what tax practitioners call the ‘substantial physical presence’ nexus standard as it applies to sales and use tax. As normally used, the Quill nexus test requires that the out-of-state retailer have some substantial physical presence in the taxing state before the taxing state can legally exert jurisdiction over the taxpayer and require the taxpayer to collect and remit the sales tax due on taxable purchases made by consumers in the taxing state. Since 1992, the type of contacts that meet this physical presence test have varied, but normally included employees entering the state, independent sales representatives working in the state, the ownership of property in the state, the rental of property in the state, the storage of inventory in the state, and the performance of services in the state. Recently, though, some states have proposed that electronic “cookies” stored on a customer’s computer would also create nexus.

In the Quill decision, the Court noted that Congress could enact laws to codify or overturn the Quill decision since their opinion turned on the interpretation of the Constitutional Commerce Clause for which Congress has the final say. For 26 years, Congress made no effort to resolve this issue. Having waited long enough, several states adopted statutes based on “economic nexus” rather than physical nexus. Under the economic nexus theory, out-of-state sellers with, for example, $100,000 of sales into the taxing state, are deemed to have nexus in the state even though they had no physical contact with the taxing state. This effort is directed at the growing e-commerce market place and other remote sellers that are not currently collecting tax on taxable sales.

South Dakota implemented one of these economic nexus statutes with an effective date of January 1, 2016.   In February or March of 2016, South Dakota issued assessments for uncollected sales tax to the remote sellers Wayfair, Overstock.com, and NewEgg. Each remote seller met the $100,000 of annual sales threshold under the South Dakota economic nexus law. The taxpayers immediately challenged the legality of the South Dakota statute and won their cases at the trial court and South Dakota Supreme Court. This was exactly as the state of South Dakota had planned and had hoped for.   Seems odd, but the South Dakota Revenue Department knew its only hope of overturning Quill was to lose its cases at the state level and then appeal these to the Supreme Court and hope the Court accepted their appeal. To the surprise of few, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the State of South Dakota’s challenge to this case. So far, things are working out just as the state wanted.

There are several possible outcomes the Court to provide once it hears the case.

  1. Uphold Quill as it was written in 1992 and require that the out-of-state taxpayers have a physical connection with the taxing state before being required to register,
  2. Modify Quill to require physical connection for some type of taxes but eliminate the requirement for other types of taxes,
  3. Abandon Quill completely and adopt the economic nexus theory requiring minimal sales level in the taxing state before registration is required,
  4. Abandon Quill completely and not adopt the economic nexus rules, or
  5. Punt back to Congress, or
  6. Some combination of the above or something completely different.

Regardless the Court’s decision, there will be long-term chaos in the remote seller community. If the states prevail in any way, I would fully expect them to pounce on their newly found authority to tax all out-of-state business under whatever authority the Court gives them. I’m afraid that many states would attempt to collect taxes retroactively. If the states do not win or do not win as big as they want, they will become even more aggressive in identify out-of-state sellers that should be collecting tax. They will also continue to implement new policies as to what constitutes nexus under the Quill case. The states hate Quill and will do whatever they can to get rid of that rule.

All the commentaries I have read on this topic involve e-commerce companies selling property to individual and business consumers. In this scenario, the property is ordered online, the order is either merchant or third-party fulfilled from inventory, and then the order is sent to the purchaser via common carrier. However, if the Quill physical nexus requirement is abandoned or modified and no physical nexus requirement in the taxing state is needed before a state can force an out-of-state seller to collect their sales tax, the full impact will be much more expansive than is being discussed. An abandonment of the Quill nexus standard could greatly impact the sales tax collection obligations of the software and wholesale/distributor sectors.

Software sales

data processingThe days of sending software to customers on a CD are nearly gone. Most software is now delivered electronically or downloaded from a website portal. Many software companies operate in a purely virtual world. Sales calls are done via web-conference or Skype and implementation and training are done remotely. Many software purchases are made by end-users with no contact at all with a salesman. Consumers order the software and receive an e-mail link to download and install the software. Most software companies likely have nexus in the state where they are headquartered and where they have employees remotely working. Twenty-years ago, very few states taxed downloaded software. Today, about 25 states tax non-custom downloaded software. Many also tax data processing services, electronic information services, and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) when the benefit of the service is received in their state. So, what would a world without Quill mean for these remote software sellers?

Without the physical nexus requirement of Quill, these software sellers and data processing companies would be forced into the same sales tax collection model as other sellers of tangible personal property.    This means that the software sellers would be required to collect tax on the software delivered to customers in states where those services are taxed. Without the physical nexus requirement of Quill, if the software is received in the taxing state and that state taxes downloaded software, the remote seller will be required to collect tax on the sale. This could also impact the taxation of technical support and software renewal agreements. The challenge with taxing electronic transmissions is that there is no traditional ‘shipping address’ that can be used to identify the location of the user at the time of the sale. It is likely that the shopping cart feature of these online software companies would need to be modified to identify the purchaser’s location. This might default to the zip-code of the credit card used for billing or some other element of the address to determine if the software is being used in a taxable state and to apply the correct tax rate.

The challenge with taxing remote data processing or SaaS charges is that the state where the product is used may differ from the state to which it is billed. The data processing or SaaS service may be used in a state that taxes the service, (i.e. Texas or New York), but billed to the corporate headquarters in a state that does not tax the service (i.e. Georgia or Florida). Some data processing or SaaS providers can track the location of the user of the SaaS or remote data processing service by using features built into the product. To know the point of usage at the time the billing is prepared and when tax is applied could be a challenge and a sales tax audit nightmare.

Sales taxes are normally sourced to the state where the service is consumed. Absent a clear indication on that location, the billing address is normally used. If the default billing state taxes these services, then 100% of the service is taxed even though only a small percent may have actually been used in that state. If the service is consumed in a state that taxes that service but no tax is charged, the retailer may have a liability for uncollected tax.

If Quill is overturned in whole or in part, sellers of software and providers of data processing, information services, and SaaS may be forced into new territories with regards to sales tax.

Exemption certificates

distribution centerOne of the general rules of sales tax is that all sales of personal property are deemed taxable unless the seller has a valid exemption certificate from the purchaser. The most common exemption certificate used by purchasers to avoid tax is the ‘resale’ exemption certificate. This includes the Multijurisdictional Resale Certificate published by the Multistate Tax Commission and the state specific forms provided by most of the other states. Wholesalers, like the software companies discussed above, can operate nationally by having presence in only a few states. Strategically located warehouses and arrangements with common carriers allow large and small wholesalers to quickly accept and fulfill orders from customers throughout the U.S.

The wholesalers I have as clients generally have most of the resale certificates from customers in the ‘ship to’ states where the wholesaler has nexus. This may only be a few states, though. In most cases, nexus is created by the presence of a salesman or the presence of property in the ship-to state. Without the physical presence test under Quill, wholesalers may be forced to request resale exemption certificates from customers in all states regardless of the wholesaler’s physical presence in that state. Failure to obtain the resale certificate could, upon audit, subject the wholesaler to a tax liability due to a missing resale certificates. This is one of the most common areas of exposure for wholesalers.

The problem could be even more extreme for wholesalers involved with third-party-drop shipment sales. Many e-commerce sellers never take passion of the property they sell. Rather, when an order arrives to the e-commerce retailer, that retailer immediately places an order with its distributor and requests that the distributor ship the property directly to the customer. This type of drop-shipment sale includes two separate sales that occur simultaneously at the point the property is delivered to the customer. First is a sale-for- resale from the supplier to the e-commerce retailer and the second sale is a retail sale from the e-commerce company to the final customer. Without the physical nexus requirement under Quill, the suppliers will be required to charge the e-commerce company sales tax on any drop-shipment sale that is not supported by a resale certificate valid in the ship-to state.

Thankfully, most states will currently accept a resale certificate from the e-commerce company’s ‘home state’. However, the additional burden of paperwork collection by the distributor and the need for them to monitor the type certificates required in the ship-to state could be overwhelming and crippling for distributors that may be supporting shipments and drop-shipments to thousands of customers. The failure of wholesalers to have the proper exemption documentation could pose significant nationwide audit risk. Without the Quill physical nexus requirement, distributors, suppliers, and wholesalers that sell property to other retailers on a nationwide basis could be unduly exposed to a tax liability simply because they have failed to obtain a resale certificate from customers located in states where the seller does not a physical presence.

Conclusion

Although the primary focus of the South Dakota case is on e-commerce retailers, there will be significant collateral impact on many different business segments if the Quill physical nexus standard is abandoned or significantly modified. I’ve noted that the software, data processing, and wholesale segments would be impacted directly, but there are most likely other business segments that have been sheltered from sales tax collection by invoking the Quill physical nexus doctrine. It would be folly for businesses that are not traditional e-commerce retailers to assume that a change to the Quill physical nexus rule would not affect them.   Every business will be affected in some way.

By Ned A. Lenhart, MBA CPA
President
Interstate Tax Strategies
https://www.salestaxstrategies.com