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


On December 16, 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, for sales and use tax purposes. The Act includes a provision that extends the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) until October 1, 2015 with all provisions unchanged.

 

On January 9, 2015, the House of Representative introduced a bill (un-numbered) that would permanently extend the ITFA, banning states and local jurisdictions from imposing any new tax on internet access. The proposed bill removes the current effective dates of November 1, 2003 through October 1, 2015 and changes the effective date to be effective for new taxes imposed after the date of the enactment.  It is not clear if states that have been grandfathered under the existing provision could retain their current tax on internet access but it appears that may be the case.  No formal legislation has been introduced that would incorporate the Marketplace Fairness Act into this bill. The bill is sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, among others.

 

For our previous news item on this topic, see Internet Tax Freedom Act is Extended Through December 11, 2014.

 

For an update on this news item, see Internet Tax Freedom Act Extended Until December 11, 2015.

 

(Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015; H.R. 235)

(02/12/2015)

President Barack Obama has signed federal legislation extending the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) through December 11, 2014 as part of the joint resolution which made continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015. The ITFA was previously set to expire on November 1, 2014. The ITFA bars state and local governments from imposing multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and taxes on Internet access.

 

For an update to this news item, see Internet Tax Freedom Act Extended Until October 1, 2015, Permanent Extension Introduced.

 

(P.L. 113-164 (H.J. Res. 124), 113th Congress, 2nd Session, Laws 2014)

(09/26/2014)

Representative Lamar Smith (Republican, Texas) has introduced a bill to bar multiple taxes on digital goods and services.  Smith had proposed an earlier bill which failed to pass.  This bill is a revised version of the earlier bill. The proposed bill – called the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2013 – would only allow a state to tax sales of digital goods and services to customers with a tax address within that state. Additionally, states would be barred from imposing multiple taxes on digital goods. The bill defines digital goods as sounds, images, data and facts maintained in digital form. Internet access service is not included as a digital good in the bill. (H.R. 3724)

(01/28/2014)

Delaware has issued a notice to remind taxpayers of gross receipts tax rate changes that became effective on January 1, 2014.  Among the rate changes, the tax rate on leases has been reduced from 2.011% to 1.991%.  (Detailed List of Division of Revenue Licenses and Tax Rates, Delaware Division of Revenue, January 14, 2014)

(01/28/2014)

On April 17, 2013, Select Medical Corporation (Select Medical) filed suit in federal district court seeking to enjoin Delaware from enforcing an unclaimed property assessment issued for years that had been resolved already through the state’s voluntary disclosure program. In 2006, Select Medical entered into Delaware’s voluntary disclosure program for the years 1997-2001. As part of the process, the company escheated approximately $17,000 to Delaware and paid approximately $300,000 in unclaimed property to states other than Delaware. On the same day that Delaware cashed the company’s escheatment check, it notified the company that it was being placed under audit. Using a third-party auditor, Delaware demanded payment of $297,436 for the period 1997-2001 based on an estimate that looked at the amount of property owed to other states for the period 2002-2008. Unable to resolve the matter with the state, Select Medical filed a lawsuit, alleging that Delaware exceeded its authority under state law by estimating an unclaimed property liability through extrapolation of amounts paid to other states for a different period, even though actual records were available from which any liability could be determined and the owners of any unclaimed property could be identified. Select Medical also alleged a variety of federal common law and constitutional violations. (Select Medical Corp. v. Del. Sec’y of Finance, Del. Dir. Of Rev., & Del. State Escheator, Case No. 1:13-cv-00694-UNA (D. Del. Apr. 17, 2013))

(05/23/2013)

Pages

Scroll to Top