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


On March 6, 2017, the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Court ruled that the state’s economic nexus legislation is unconstitutional. The legislation – which became effective May 1, 2016 – requires remote sellers without a physical presence in the state to collect and remit South Dakota sales and use tax on sales in the state if the retailer makes in-state sales exceeding $100,000 or makes 200 or more separate sales transactions in the previous or current calendar year. In the ruling, the state acknowledged that under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the State of South Dakota is prohibited from imposing the sales tax collection and remittance obligations. The state agreed that the statute was unconstitutional and agreed with the summary judgement finding.  This was expected as the case progresses towards an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to overturn Quill. For our previous news item, see South Dakota Enacts Economic Nexus Legislation. (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., S.D. Cir. Ct., No. 32 Civ. 16-000092, 3/6/17).

 

UPDATE: On August 29, 2017, the South Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments over South Dakota’s economic nexus legislation. We will monitor this situation and provide updates as more developments happen (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., S.D., No. 28160, oral arguments 8/29/17).

 

UPDATE: On September 13, 2017, the South Dakota Supreme Court struck down the state’s economic nexus legislation, concurring with the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Court’s ruling that the legislation conflicts with Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and is unconstitutional. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has issued a statement confirming that the state will request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and reconsider the Quill decision. (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., South Dakota Supreme Court, No. 28160, September 13, 2017)

 

UPDATE: On October 2, 2017, South Dakota filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to take up South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. in an effort to overturn Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. We will continue to monitor for updates. (South Dakota, Petitionerv. Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc.,and Newegg, Inc. Respondents. In The Supreme Court of the United States On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Dakota)

(10/23/2017)

Starting September 1, 2017, Airbnb will collect and remit state and municipal taxes on all eligible bookings in South Dakota. The following taxes will be collected and remitted by Airbnb: state sales tax, municipal sales tax, municipal gross receipts tax, and tourism tax. The appropriate taxes will be charged when booking through Airbnb.If the host rents their unit on other platforms that do no collect the tax on their behalf, they should continue to maintain their registration and collect the tax.  Even though Airbnb will be collecting the tax, the hosts should continue to file returns reporting the gross sales and then showing the Airbnb sales as non-taxable sales. (Airbnb reaches tax agreement with South Dakota, will begin collecting taxes Sept. 1, South Dakota Department of Revenue)

(09/28/2017)

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