Stay up to date with sales tax: Join our mailing list!


On June 2, 2017, the Illinois Department of Revenue issued a general information letter in response to an inquiry about whether a taxpayer’s medical transcription service activities created nexus with Illinois, necessitating the payment of sales tax. For the medical transcription service, the taxpayer hired independent contractors who worked from home using their own equipment. The independent contractors performed work for customers in various states, including Illinois.

 

Sales tax is imposed in Illinois upon people “engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property to purchasers for use or consumption” (fully described in 86 Ill. Adm. Code 150.201(i)). In the letter, the Department of Revenue explained that, generally, if no tangible personal property is transferred, then a transaction is not subject to Retailers' Occupation Tax, Use Tax, Service Occupation Tax, or Service Use Tax. Since no tangible property is transferred in connection with the medical transcription services, no tax is due. 

 


Regarding the creation of nexus with Illinois, the department clarified the characteristics of an “Illinois retailer” and a retailer “maintaining a place of business” in Illinois. Such a retailer must collect and remit use tax to the state to conform with the retailer’s occupation tax act and use tax act.  Since there was no tax due, the Department did not give a definitive answer regarding nexus under the facts of using independent contractors to perform these services. (General Information Letter ST 17-0018-GIL, Illinois Department of Revenue, June 2, 2017).

(10/23/2017)

In a substantial win for taxpayers in the class action lawsuit nightmares,an Illinois court held that a Nevada-based online retailer that sells cosmetics online and through catalogs did not have substantial nexus with Illinois and was therefore not required to collect sales tax in Illinois. The online retailer licensed the brand. A brick-and-mortar company also licensed the brand and sold the cosmetics at its retail stores. The online retailer mailed catalogs into Illinois several times a year. The catalogs were also available at stores owned by the brick-and-mortar company. In Illinois, a retailer has substantial nexus and is required to collect and remit Illinois sales tax if the retailer solicits orders by mail and benefits from marketing activities in Illinois.

 

The court held that the online retailer did not have a physical presence in Illinois, and the brick-and-mortar company did not act as an agent of the online retailer or act on behalf of the online retailer even though it had the online retailer’s catalogs in its stores. The online retailer and brick-and-mortar company were separate entities, maintained separate merchandise and employed separate marketing schemes. In fact, the two companies competed for business. The two companies had separate financial records and income tax returns. Further, the brick-and-mortar company did not accept returns of merchandise purchased from the online retailer. As a result, the online retailer did not benefit from the brick-and-mortar company’s marketing activities.

 

The court also held that the online retailer did not knowingly fail to pay an Illinois tax obligation under the False Claims Act. The online retailer had consulted with tax advisors about its potential tax liability in Illinois and was informed that it did not have nexus in Illinois. The online retailer did not collect sales tax in Illinois until it changed its business operations and determined it had nexus in-state. (State of Illinois v. Lush Internet Inc., Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, No. 1-16-1601, September 25, 2017)

(10/23/2017)

The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) has announced a sales/use tax and income/franchise tax amnesty program for online sellers that will run from August 17 to November 1, 2017 (previously October 17, 2017). Qualified online sellers with potential tax liability may be able to use the MTC's voluntary disclosure agreement (VDA) to negotiate a settlement during the amnesty period if they meet certain eligibility requirements. Taxpayers that have not been contacted by any of the states participating in the amnesty program will be able to apply to start remitting sales tax on future sales without penalty or liability for unpaid, prior accumulated sales tax in the participating states. 25 MTC member states have agreed to participate in the amnesty program. The participating states include: 

 

  • Alabama
  • Arkansas
  • Colorado (sales/use tax only)
  • Connecticut
  • District of Columbia (may not waive all prior periods)
  • Florida
  • Idaho
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Massachusetts (special provisions apply)
  • Minnesota (special provisions apply)
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska (may not waive all prior periods)
  • New Jersey
  • North Carolina
  • Oklahoma
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas 
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Wisconsin (will require payment of back tax and interest for a lookback period commencing January 1, 2015 for sales/use tax, and including the prior tax years of 2015 and 2016 for income/franchise tax)

 

Some of the additional states may require a limited look-back period for prior tax liabilities. Sellers who wish to participate in the program will need to file the voluntary disclosure program paperwork during the program dates. The MTC will route the paperwork for each participating state for which the seller is seeking amnesty protection. For more details visit the MTC website.

 

UPDATE: The Multistate Tax Commission's online seller amnesty program is now over. If you didn't take advantage of this program but realize you need to evaluate your activities, you can contact us here.

(11/07/2017)

On June 12, 2017, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017. A previous version of this bill had been introduced in 2016 and failed to pass. Under the proposed bill, a State may tax or regulate a person’s activity in interstate commerce only when such person is physically present in the State during the period in which the tax or regulation is imposed. Under the proposed bill, the physical presencerequirement would apply to sales and use taxand net income and other business activities taxes, as well as the states’ ability to regulateinterstate commerce. “Physical presence” in a state includes:

 

  • maintaining a commercial or legal domicile in the state;
  • owning, holding a leasehold interest in, or maintaining real property such as an office, retail store, warehouse, distribution center, manufacturing operation, or assembly facility in the state;
  • leasing or owning tangible personal property (other than computer software) of more than de minimis value in the state;
  • having one or more employees, agents or independent contractors present in the state who provide on-site design, installation, or repair services on behalf of the remote seller;
  • having one or more employees, exclusive agents or exclusive independent contractors present in the state who engage in activities that substantially assist the person to establish or maintain a market in the state; or
  • regularly employing in the state three or more employees for any purpose.

 

“Physical presence” in a state would not include:

 

  • entering into an agreement under which a person, for a commission or other consideration, directly or indirectly refers potential purchasers to a person outside the state, whether by an Internet-based link or platform, Internet Web site or otherwise;
  • any presence in a state for less than 15 days in a taxable year (or a greater number of days if provided by state law);
  • product placement, setup or other services offered in connection with delivery of products by an interstate or in-state carrier or other service provider;
  • Internet advertising services provided by in-state residents which are not exclusively directed towards, or do not solicit exclusively, in-state customers;
  • ownership by a person outside the state of an interest in a limited liability company or similar entity organized or with a physical presence in the state;
  • the furnishing of information to customers or affiliates in such state, or the coverage of events or other gathering of information in such state by such person, or his representative, which information is used or disseminated from a point outside the state; or
  • business activities directly relating to such person's potential or actual purchase of goods or services within the State if the final decision to purchase is made outside the state.

 

In addition, the bill prohibits the imposition or assessment of a sales, use or other similar tax or a reporting requirement unless the purchaser or seller has physical presence in the state.  This would prohibit all the remote seller legislation (click through, affiliate, economic, marketplace and reporting/notification). If enacted, the legislation would apply with respect to calendar quarters beginning on or after January 1, 2018. (No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017)

(07/12/2017)

On April 27, 2017, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2017 (MFA). Similar legislation was introduced in both 2013 and 2015 and failed to be enacted both times. If enacted, the legislation would authorize states meeting certain requirements to require remote sellers that do not meet a "small seller exception" to collect their state and local sales and use taxes. The small seller exception is set again at $1 million of remote sales annually. The only other significant change from the 2015 version is a prohibition of making the effective date during the 4th quarter of the calendar year. For information on the previous versions of the bill, visit Senate Introduces Marketplace Fairness Act of 2015.  

 

On April 27, 2017, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the Remote Transactions Parity Act (RTPA) of 2017. Similar legislation was introduced in 2015 but failed to be enacted. Like the MFA, the legislation would also create sales and use tax collection obligations for remote sellers, but has some differences and additional provisions. Some key differences from the Marketplace Fairness Act include a different definition of a small seller.  The RTPA has a phased in threshold starting at $10million in year one, then $5million, then $1million.  In year 4, there is no threshold.  In addition to the monetary thresholds, any seller that sells on an electronic marketplace is considered a small seller.  A difference from the 2015 version of the bill is an inclusion of a definition of remote seller which specifies when a company is NOT a remote seller which includes physical presences for more than 15 days in a state, leasing or owning real property and using an agent to establish or maintain the market in a state if the agent does not perform business services in the state for any other person during the taxable year.  For more information on the Remote Transaction Parity Act of 2015, visit House Introduces Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2015. (Marketplace Fairness Act of 2017, Remote Transactions Parity Act of 2017)

(05/04/2017)

Pages

Scroll to Top