SALT Blog - SALT Blawg

Virginia, like Texas, treats a contractor as the consumer, or the user, of materials that it purchases in order to perform construction and other contracting services.  See generally, Virginia Field Audit Guidelines. In the case of Texas, this application of this rule depends on the invoice methodology used by the contractor, i.e., whether the contractor uses a separated or completed contract. See generally, Texas Audit Procedures for Contractors and Repairmen.

In the instant case, the taxpayer fabricates and delivers to job sites various tangible personal property (“TPP” ...

 By Paul Masters

With one lone dissent, the Texas Senate passed a bill last Friday, May 13, 2011, relating to Internet retailers doing business in Texas. As previously highlighted HB 2403 attempts to settle the issue raised by the Texas Comptroller on whether Amazon is engaged in business in Texas by setting up a distribution center in Texas. The Comptroller has already estimated a $269 million assessment against Amazon. This bill states that this is a "change in law," and that it does "not affect tax liability accruing before the effective date" of the legislation, being January 1 ...

 By Paul Masters

By unanimous consent, the Texas House passed HB 1841 which establishes that the sole activity of placing a web page on a server of a third party in Texas does not constitute doing business in Texas. Further, the bill provides safe havens for persons providing Texas host services, by ensuring no such person has a duty to (i) examine a user’s data to determine applicability of the sales tax to a user, (ii) report to the Comptroller the user’s activities, or (iii) advise a user as to the applicability of the sales tax in Texas. The Senate is expected to pass similar ...

 By Paul Masters

On Tuesday, the Texas House easily passed HB 2403. The bill addresses the “Amazon” issue, by subjecting a person to tax if the person has a distribution center in Texas, but also expands the definition of doing business in Texas to include any person who “derives receipts from the sale” of tangible personal property in Texas. This would presumably include Amazon affiliates, an issue hotly contested by Amazon in New York and other states.

Specifically, the bill modifies the Texas Tax Code as follows:

(i) redefines "seller" and "retailer" under the Texas Tax ...

The Texas Comptroller recently ruled in Hearing No. 100,984 that where an out-of-state seller authorizes Texas retailers to provide warranty service, such authorization constitutes sufficient nexus for sales and use tax purposes in Texas.

In response to the Texas Comptroller’s deficiency assessment of $269 million for uncollected sales and use tax, Amazon retaliated by filing suit in Travis district court for the production of “[i]nformation related to the audit and the assessment.” As of January 19, 2011, the Texas Comptroller had not been served and thus had no comment.

Other Texas retailers have complained to the Texas Comptroller of the unfair advantage given to Internet retailers such as Amazon who have not been collecting Texas sales and use tax.

In an opinion filed December 30, 2010, the Supreme Court of Iowa has upheld a lower court decision imposing income tax on a franchisor (KFC), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky.  KFC had no physical presence within the state of Iowa, but licensed its system to related entities and independent franchisees.  KFC owned no restaurant properties in Iowa and had no employees in Iowa.

On December 15, 2010, the Texas Third Court of Appeals heard oral argument on an appeal by Roark Amusement & Vending, L.P. in response to a lower court's decision upholding the Texas Comptroller's action imposing sales and use tax on the purchase by Roark for toys placed in a claw machine. Roark argued the sales and use tax sale-for-resale exemption applied as the toys in the claw machine were used in the performance of a taxable service. It argued that coin-operated amusement services should be subject "to the integral transfer sales and use tax exemption found in the 'sale for resale' tax exemption statute." Roark alternatively argued that 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.301(b) is invalid to the extent it excludes Roark's transaction from the sale-for-resale exemption, as the Comptroller improperly limited the Legislature's exemption.