The ACMA Logo, 4 shapes blue, red, black and light blue, with ACMA, on in each shape. Underneath reading American Commerce Marketing Association.

MENU

HOME --> Member Exclusive: ACMA’s Legal Corner – State and Local Agencies Are At It Again in Sales Tax Actions (Pt. 1 of 2)

Four Shapes, dark blue square, red circle, black square, light blue square, used as a background image.

Member Exclusive: ACMA’s Legal Corner – State and Local Agencies Are At It Again in Sales Tax Actions (Pt. 1 of 2)

By Martin I. Eisenstein and Nathaniel A. BesseyBrann & Isaacson

There have been a number of developments in the last month or so in the large states that warrant a new column on this subject. The common theme is an effort by states and local jurisdictions to use the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair as a basis to export tax obligations to online retailers located outside of their state.

A company’s state tax obligations are in large part determined on the basis of the applicable nexus standard for the tax in question: essentially, is there a sufficient connection between the state and the business or activity being taxed to permit the state to impose its tax?

In our federal system, the principal governing standard setting the permissible boundaries of state taxation is derived from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the case of state income tax, federal statutory law comes into play as well. You probably saw the ACMA press release November 16th, reporting an order out of the California Superior Court, permitting the ACMA to move forward with its challenge to the California Franchise Tax Board’s regulation that interpreted the federal statute, Public Law 86-272, as it applies to the California franchise (income) tax, so as to expand the reach of its income tax.

In the first of our two-part report on recent state tax developments, we discuss developments in the sales tax area, particularly in two states – Massachusetts and Colorado – where out-of-state companies are being subjected to significant compliance burdens by taxing authorities. In Part 2, we will discuss the states’ attempt to impose income tax obligations on companies located elsewhere, including efforts by California, which prompted the ACMA court challenge.

Massachusetts
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Wayfair reversed the Commerce Clause physical presence test of Quill v. North Dakota (1992), the states rapidly adopted so called “economic nexus” laws, in which mere sales into the state over a small amount required the retailer to collect and remit the state’s sales tax. Every state that has a sales tax has now adopted an economic nexus law, with the law in Missouri, the last state to adopt economic nexus, set to take effect on January 1, 2023.

In the wake of the Wayfair decision, some states, such as Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont, demanded that retailers begin collecting the state’s sales tax within a matter of weeks. Others provided grace periods of a few months or more (e.g. Florida – 2 years) to permit retailers to commence sales tax collection. In every case but one, however, the states adopted economic nexus on a prospective basis, and did not seek tax collection for any periods prior to July 1, 2018. Massachusetts was the lone exception.

In September 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) issued the Internet Vendor Regulation, also affectionately known as the “cookie rule.” The regulation provided that, effective October 1, 2017, any internet vendor whose annual Internet sales to Massachusetts exceeded $500,000 was required to collect the sales tax, unless the retailer did not use cookies, apps or content delivery networks (“CDNs”), technologies that the DOR declared created a physical presence in Massachusetts.  Since every company that maintains a website uses cookies, Massachusetts assessed a sales tax going back to October 2017 on over 40 retailers based outside of Massachusetts.

Most of the retailers, including many ACMA members, protested the assessments on several grounds, including the fact that cookies, apps, and CDNs do not constitute a physical presence. One of the companies, US Auto Parts, represented by Brann & Isaacson, litigated the assessment before the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board, while the protests by the other assessed companies were stayed because the decision in the US Auto Parts case will affect the outcome of these other cases.

In a unanimous decision of the three members of the Board, the Board agreed with our argument that these virtual contacts did not satisfy the physical presence requirement. The Board also rejected the Department of Revenue’s argument that Wayfair should be applied retroactively to justify the sales tax assessment based merely on these virtual contacts.

Although Massachusetts like other states has realized large sales tax revenues after July 2018 as a result of Wayfair, the DOR nevertheless appealed the Board’s decision, repeating its argument before the Board that Wayfair should be applied retroactively.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on November 4, 2022, at which the seven judges peppered the attorneys with questions. The Court will issue a written decision in the next several months. While it is dangerous to determine the result of a case from oral argument, we are optimistic based on the questions and comments of the Judges.

Colorado
Colorado has a complex mosaic of sales tax jurisdictions, including over 200 state-administered county, special district and municipal taxing bodies, in addition to the State of Colorado. Despite the significant burdens of collecting and remitting the state-administered state and local taxes – a task that requires the monthly filing of a return that exceeds 150 pages – the burden of filing state-administered returns pales in comparison to the enormous burden of complying with the sales tax laws of 69 home-rule cities, such as Denver, Boulder, Golden, Colorado Springs, and Lakewood.

Each home rule city has the power to impose its own taxes that may not have the same tax base as the state and state-administered system. For example, the state law exempts shipping and handling charges based on certain conditions, while the home rule jurisdictions generally tax shipping and handling and the few exceptions for taxability are different than the state level exceptions. In addition, each jurisdiction has its own forms and tax returns.

Most troublesome is the fact that multiple cities may use the same zip code, so that tax decisions based on zip code can lead to substantial errors. The state has recently developed a sales and use tax system known as SUTS, which provides a no-cost lookup service to determine the correct local jurisdiction based on the address inputted, but this system does not eliminate the extraordinary burden of home-rule city tax compliance.

In addition to the fact that some home rule jurisdictions have yet to adopt the SUTS system, more significantly it can take several minutes to use the lookup feature and download the correct rate. Use of the “free” SUTS system can lead to large abandonment rates, given the fact that online customers demand responses in seconds or less rather than minutes. As a practical matter, therefore, most retailers use third party sales tax collection software, which may geocode the proper jurisdiction but at significantly greater expense than tax collection for other jurisdictions.

Despite the burdens of home-rule city tax collection, several home-rule jurisdictions have enacted economic nexus laws and begun to enforce them. The home-rule city economic nexus laws are largely based on the CML Model Ordinance on Economic Nexus issued by the Colorado Municipal League. The Model Ordinance provides an economic nexus standard for only those companies that do not have a physical presence in Colorado but whose annual sales to customers anywhere in the state of Colorado (not necessarily within the particular city imposing the tax) exceed $100,000.

For businesses that do have a physical presence in Colorado, the nexus standard for home-rule cities continues to be based on physical presence, meaning that the CML Model Ordinance on Economic Nexus applies different nexus standards to out-of-state business than to businesses with a physical presence in Colorado.

As we wrote in State Tax Notes last August, the laws may be vulnerable to challenge based on the Commerce Clause and Colorado law, including the fact that the law discriminates on its face against interstate commerce.

Our firm also recently engaged with several Colorado home-rule cities on behalf of out-of-state retailers who have been audited by one or more of the home rule jurisdictions, and have successfully persuaded some of these jurisdictions not to assess an out of state retailer for past taxes. We should note that one city — Lakewood — continues to insist on enforcing its law against Wayfair (See Wayfair v. City of Lakewood, Colorado District Court, City of Jefferson, Case No. 2022CV30710, filed August 5, 2022), although the circumstances described in that case may differ from the way other retailers do business. Stay tuned for developments in that case.

Conclusion
Nearly 4-1/2 years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Wayfair, ACMA members face challenges in the sales tax area.  How to address those challenges, as is the case for most legal issues, depends on the facts and circumstances of the individual retailer.  ACMA members should carefully consider these developments in light of the way they do business to determine the appropriate course of action.

We will give you a break to celebrate Thanksgiving before we report on the state income tax area. Speaking of Thanksgiving, we wish you a happy holiday for you and your families.

 

—–

 

The author’s bios are linked above. For more information, contact Marty Eisenstein at meisenstein@brannlaw.com

 

Legal Disclaimer:
This column is for educational purposes only, to provide information as of the date of the blog about various legal issues we believe may be of interest to members of the ACMA and other catalog marketers. Reading this column does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and any of the column’s authors or their law firm Brann & Isaacson.  Although the authors of this column are attorneys, the information provided here is not provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This column is not intended to be legal advertising or to solicit any specific representation. The views expressed are those of the authors, and are not intended to reflect or express the views of the ACMA or any of its members.

 

ACMA Contacts:
Paul Miller, vice president & deputy director, 914-669-8391, pmiller@catalogmailers.org

Hamilton Davison, president & executive director, 800-509-9514, hdavison@catalogmailers.org
###
© 2022 ACMA, Inc. This report is for ACMA members only. Please do not circulate beyond your company. Any reproduction is prohibited.

Share On Social

Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email

Follow Us

The ACMA Logo for the 17th Annual Forum, 4 shapes blue, red, black and light blue, with ACMA, on in each shape. Underneath reading 2024 National Forum.

17th Annual National Forum Registration Page

$1,495.00$1,695.00

Capitol building photo, taken at night.

Postal Fund Donations

$100.00$1,000.00

Catalog Industry Action Funds

$100.00$250.00

Support ACMA’s Industry Action Funds

You can assist with specific areas of ACMA’s program of work by providing much-needed resources dedicated to a particular issue. Our Industry Action Funds are segregated accounts held by ACMA, made available as a “war chest” to deploy on specific issues that impact direct and remote marketers and their suppliers — eliminating the time and effort needed to raise funds in the heat of battle.


Please note that your contributions to ACMA Action Funds will not be used for any general ACMA “corporate purposes” other than a 5% service fee on funds raised and administered. Non-ACMA members are always eligible to make one-off donations. Such contributions support our network of consultants on whom we depend to advocate for the interests of direct and remote marketers and their suppliers. These funds are only used to pay for out-of-pocket expenses of the specific issues outlined below. Large volume donors may be considered for Steering Committees of each Fund. Click here for more information on how the funds are distributed and used.

Want a discount? Become a member! Or log in if you are a member.
SKU: catalog_industry_action_funds Category: Tag:

Description

Restricted Status: Each Fund will be separately administered as restricted under the direction of the ACMA Board of Directors by the ACMA Treasurer and our association accountant. An elected Officer from the Executive Committee or the ACMA Board will authorize disbursements. Details on expenditures will be made available to any material contributor on request. Restricted funds may be released only upon authorization of the benefactor or in the event the contributing entity is defunct, by vote of the ACMA Board.

Use of Funds: Moneys from each fund may be used for hiring lobbyists, economists, attorneys, consultants, public relations or government relations personnel, conducting research or other surveys highlighting positions favorable to cataloging, supporting coalitions or other groups allied to our positions, paying for advertising aimed at influencing elected officials or other stakeholders, organizing grass roots outreach, education or advocacy in support of public policy positions or for other tactics favorable to ACMA policy positions. Money raised will not be used to support any political candidate or political party; these moneys must come from a Political Action Committee.

Lynn Noble

President & Executive Director

New Member Development & Acquisition; Postal Affairs

Lynn Noble is ACMA’s Vice President, Industry Relations, having joined the ACMA in May 2015, following an extensive direct marketing career in private industry as well as the US Postal Service. He is responsible for leading the membership development efforts for the ACMA through new member acquisitions and providing enhanced member value.

Throughout his career, Lynn has held key marketing & sales positions with several leading direct marketers, as well as several high-level management positions with the US Postal Service.

In 2009, at the request of the ACMA, the US Postal Service initiated a new position of Catalog Manager to lead the Service’s efforts to stabilize and grow the catalog industry. Lynn returned to the USPS to lead those efforts and was instrumental to developing a stronger industry partnership between the Postal Service and the catalog industry. Serving as the product manager for catalogs, Lynn helped to raise the awareness of catalog-specific business challenges within the executive ranks of the USPS. During his tenure, the ACMA and catalog companies enjoyed a collaborative and progressive environment that produced more stabilized rates and inclusion in key USPS promotional opportunities.

Just prior to joining the ACMA Lynn was the USPS’s Manager, Strategic Account Operations, leading a team of senior sales professionals who focused exclusively in the Catalog, Mail Order, and E-commerce arena. In addition to his Postal positions, Lynn previously held key positions with leading direct marketing companies, including Cox Target Media, Market Logic, Catalina Marketing, Freesamples.com, and Advantage Direct.

Paul Miller

Vice President & Deputy Director

Association Matters, Marketing / Communications, Membership Relations

Named Vice President & Deputy Director in January 2010, Miller came to the ACMA following a lengthy career of more than two decades following the catalog/multichannel/e-commerce/retail businesses. Reporting to ACMA president & executive director Hamilton Davison, Miller oversees marketing and communications, membership development, and organizes and oversees ACMA’s National Catalog Forum, while working with Davison on most of ACMA’s postal-related efforts.

Miller started his career as a reporter with Catalog Showroom Business, following a form of retailing that was led by the likes of the Service Merchandise and Best Products retail chains.

After several years of editor/reporter roles with business magazines that followed the toy and gift industries, Miller was named associate editor of Catalog Age magazine (now Multichannel Merchant) in 1986. He rose up the ranks at Catalog Age over the next 18 years to be the magazine’s senior news editor.

Beginning in the late ’80s, Miller became Catalog Age’s postal beat reporter, where he’d follow key postal events and pull out the key catalog mail-related issues for readers. During that time, he attended many Mailers Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) meetings and National Postal forums.

After leaving Catalog Age in 2004, Miller consulted with several catalogers and multichannel suppliers for a time, he was named news/website editor at Commercial Property News. Less than a year later, he was asked to take the reigns at Catalog Success (now All About ROI) where he served as editor-in- chief from 2006 till the end of 2009.

 

Mike Plunkett

President & Executive Director

Washington, legislative, lobbying matters

ACMA appointed Michael K. Plunkett as its President and Executive Director in January 2024, succeeding founder Hamilton Davison. Mr. Davison moved on to own and run a company. Mr. Plunkett brings years of executive leadership experience having been the President and CEO of the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom) since 2017.  In the newly-formed dual role, he will continue his current role with PostCom and the two organizations will operate separately.

During his tenure, PostCom has continued to lead the mailing and shipping industry on policy and regulatory matters and to work with Government agency partners to advance issues of importance to members. Mr. Plunkett is also President of the Delivery Technology Advocacy Council, a nonprofit launched in 2020 to concentrate on delivery and logistics technologies.

Prior to PostCom, Mr. Plunkett accumulated more than 25 years Postal experience with the United States Postal Service in numerous executive roles in operations, marketing, product development and pricing.  As a leader within the Postal Service’s management team, Mr. Plunkett developed a well-earned reputation for innovation by leading efforts to develop pricing agreements for domestic services and in the development of the forever stamp and the priority mail flat rate box.

Mr. Plunkett has testified on pricing and policy issues before the Postal Regulatory Commission and Congressional subcommittees.  He has authored and presented papers on postal policies, economics, and operations for National and International conferences.

Mr. Plunkett holds Masters Degrees in Business from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was a Sloan Fellow. He earned a Bachelor Degrees in Economics and Finance from the Pennsylvania State University.