Supreme Court Grants Cert In DMA Tax Case

On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Direct Marketing Association. The DMA is represented by Brann & Isaacson partners George S. Isaacson and Matthew P. Schaefer.

The DMA seeks review of a Tenth Circuit ruling that the Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge brought by the DMA to a 2010 Colorado law that requires out-of-state retailers to comply with burdensome notice and reporting obligations that are only indirectly related to the payment of use tax on remote sales. Brann & Isaacson is tax counsel to the DMA and represents over 100 multichannel and online companies.  The United State Supreme Court accepts review in only about 70 out of 7000 petitions filed each session.

Our readers can review previous posts on this topic here.

Illinois and Colorado Adopt Two Different Approaches to Internet Click-Through Nexus Laws

We have written extensively about Internet click-through nexus laws. Indeed, Brann & Isaacson prevailed, on behalf of the Performance Marketing Association, in the challenge to the Illinois Internet click-through nexus law. On October 18, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois statute violated the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”), which is found at 47 U.S.C. §151 note, because the Illinois statute discriminated against electronic commerce. The lower court, the Circuit Court of Cook County, had held that the Illinois statute also violated the Commerce Clause because it mandated that any retailer that had an affiliate relationship with an Illinois company (i.e. the Illinois company referred potential customers to the retailer for a commission or other consideration) was required to collect and remit the Illinois sales and use tax. Because of its ruling under the ITFA, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to address the Commerce Clause issue.

In February 2014, the DMA, also represented by Brann & Isaacson, obtained a preliminary injunction from the District Court of Colorado, enjoining the enforcement of the Colorado reporting nexus law. The Colorado law required those companies that do not have a physical presence in Colorado to file reports with the Colorado Department of Revenue, make certain disclosures on their websites and catalogs and notify their customers through mailings describing the customers' obligation to remit sales taxes to the Colorado Department of Revenue. We reported on this decision in our February 20, 2014 blog post.

Subsequent to both the Illinois and Colorado victories for the industry, the legislatures in both of these states amended their statutes to address click-through nexus arrangements. Their approaches are different, though:

Did Wyoming Just Become an Internet Affiliate Nexus State?

We have written often about state Internet “click through” nexus laws, including the New York affiliate nexus statute unsuccessfully challenged by Amazon.com and Overstock.com, and the Illinois Internet affiliate nexus law stuck down by the Illinois Supreme Court in response to a suit brought by the Performance Marketing Association (for which Brann & Isaacson served as counsel). In most states, meaningful risk of Internet affiliate nexus for an out-of-state seller arises only after the legislature adopts a statute that, like New York’s law, creates a rebuttable presumption of “click through” nexus. In our view, even such a rebuttable presumption suffers from serious constitutional failings. Thus, an even more aggressive position, such as asserting that an Internet affiliate relationship, by itself, can create nexus for an out-of-state vendor without providing any opportunity to rebut the presumption, is plainly at odds with the Constitution.

On April 3, 2014, the Wyoming Supreme Court waded into the “click through” nexus arena and raised the possibility that, under Wyoming case law, the mere existence of an Internet affiliate relationship with an in-state website may be deemed sufficient to create nexus for an out-of-state retailer. See Travelocity.com et al. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2014 WY 43 (Apr. 3, 2014). The case is one in an extensive series of cases around the country involving challenges to state tax assessments brought by online travel companies. At issue typically in these cases is the question of whether online travel companies (“OTCs”) are subject to a state sales/use tax collection obligation on the portion of their charge to consumers that is not paid to the hotel that provides the room (as to which tax is often collected by the OTC, paid to the hotel, and remitted remitted to the state). The OTCs have argued that the portion of the charge not paid to the hotel is a service fee collected by the OTCs, not a part of the charge to the consumer for the room.

The OTC cases raise numerous issues under both state sales and use tax law and federal constitutional principles, including substantial nexus. Since nexus requires a sufficient connection between the state and both the seller and the activity/transaction being taxed, see Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 279 (1977), the OTCs have argued that nexus is lacking with regard to the transaction in question, since their sales occur on servers located outside the state in which the room is provided. In other words, the OTCs assert that the state lacks nexus with the activity being taxed, regardless of whether there is sufficient nexus with the OTCs themselves as sellers.

Supreme Court Denies Petitions for Cert of Amazon and Overstock

As we recently wrote, last spring New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, issued a decision upholding the state’s Internet affiliate nexus law after a challenge made by Overstock.com and Amazon.com. The Court of Appeals found that the law, which creates a rebuttable presumption of nexus for out-of-state vendors who employ in-state affiliates, satisfies substantial nexus requirements and does not violate the Due Process clause.

In September, Overstock.com and Amazon.com sought review of the decision of the Court of Appeals by filing petitions for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. After extensive briefing by the petitioners, the State of New York, and many amicus curiae, on December 2, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for cert. (See the cases’ status here and here.)

This ends the petitioner’s facial constitutional challenge to the New York affiliate nexus law as Overstock.com and Amazon.com have now exhausted their appellate options. The decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the case, however, does not mean that every state’s affiliate nexus law is valid and enforceable. For instance, the Illinois Supreme Court held in October that Illinois’s Internet affiliate nexus statute was preempted by the Federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Supreme Court’s decision Monday has no impact on the now unenforceable Illinois law.

Affiliate Nexus Law Update: Minnesota and Maine Approve New Statutes, Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill

While the Marketplace Fairness Act sits in committee in Congress awaiting hearings, two more states have enacted affiliate nexus statutes imposing tax on remote sellers. The governor of another state, however, declined to add his state to the list of jurisdictions enacting counterproductive, and arguably unconstitutional, “click through” nexus laws. Below is a quick round up of recent news in Minnesota, Maine, and Missouri:

Last week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed into law a click-through nexus bill which creates a rebuttable presumption for out-of-state retailers with in-state affiliates and which goes into effect for sales made after June 30, 2013. The new law states that an out-of-state seller is presumed to be soliciting sales in the state if it enters into an agreement with a resident for a commission or other similar consideration for referrals of potential customers, whether by a link of a website or otherwise. The presumption only applies if the seller has at least $10,000 of gross receipts in the 12 month period preceding the calendar quarter in which the sale is made. Sellers can rebut this presumption with proof that the resident did not engage in any solicitation on behalf of the seller that would satisfy the nexus requirement under the Constitution. The same bill also imposes tax on certain specified digital products which previously were exempt from sales tax.

The Marketplace Fairness Act: Are Online Retailers Now Required to Collect and Remit Every States’ Sales Tax Even Though They Do Not Have A Physical Presence?

On May 6, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act (S.743). If enacted into law, the Act would require Internet sellers (as well as catalogers and other direct marketers) to collect and remit the sales and use tax of each state (and any local jurisdictions that assess sales taxes) on all of their remote sales to the state, even if the retailer does not have a physical presence in the state. If adopted, the bill would do away with the nexus/physical presence requirement for mandatory sales tax collection described in Quill v. North Dakota.

Much of the media coverage of the Marketplace Fairness Act gives the impression that the requirement of sales and use tax collection without a physical presence will be effective immediately, now that the Senate has passed the bill. That, of course, is not the case. In order for states to have the power to require sales tax collection by companies without a physical presence, the U.S. House must pass the bill in the same form as did the Senate, and then President Obama must approve the jointly passed legislation.

While President Obama has indicated his support for the Marketplace Fairness Act, there are a number of members of the House who are opposed to the bill. Moreover, unlike the Senate which did not hold any committee hearings prior to voting, the House will hold hearings on the legislation, through the House Judiciary Committee. Importantly, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, has noted his concern regarding the failure of the Marketplace Fairness Act to address many of the concerns of remote sellers. Speaker Boehner has voiced similar concerns. Thus, it is likely that even if legislation abrogating Quill is adopted by the House ― a possibility given existing bipartisan support ― such a bill will probably not be in the same form as passed the Senate. Moreover, given the significant role played by Rep. Goodlatte, Speaker Boehner, and other members of the House, chances are there will be a substantial delay before adoption of any legislation. Indeed, the House Judiciary Committee has yet to schedule hearings on the bill, and it has been reported that the Committee is drafting its own legislation. The message for any remote seller should be wait and see, at a minimum, before embarking on costly measures to implement sales tax collection in the more than 9000 jurisdictions that impose sales taxes.

Senate Passes Marketplace Fairness Act

By a vote of 69 to 27, the U.S. Senate on May 6 passed the Marketplace Fairness Act (“MFA”). The MFA would authorize states and other taxing jurisdictions that meet minimal tax simplification requirements to impose a sales/use tax collection obligation on Internet retailers and other remote sellers. The final version of the bill expanded the original scope of the authorization to include tribal organizations, in addition to states, US territories, and the District of Columbia. No additional simplification measures were added by the Senate, leaving a bill that does not require genuine reform of state and local sales and use tax systems. Nor did the Senate raise the threshold for the small seller exemption above $1 million in total US sales, leaving small businesses vulnerable to costly and burdensome compliance and tax administration requirements. As any business put through the rigors of even a single state’s audit process knows, the specter of more than 45 audits each year can be enough to cripple a smaller Internet or catalog vendor.

The MFA now moves to the House of Representatives, where the prospects for passage are less certain. Some Republican representatives have voiced support for the bill, however. Ecommerce sellers interested in the bill should contact their representatives to make their voices heard, before the bill becomes law. We will continue to update our readers on developments concerning the MFA.

Kansas Enacts Internet Affiliate Nexus Law

On April 16, 2013, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed SB 83, which includes a provision patterned after the New York Internet affiliate nexus law recently upheld by the New York Court of Appeals in Overstock.com v. New York Department of Taxation and Finance. The law amends the definition of “retailer doing business in the state” in K.S. § 79-3702(h)(1) to create a presumption of nexus if a retailer enters into an agreement with one or more Kansas residents under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration, refers customers to the retailer “by a link or an Internet website, by telemarketing, by an in-person oral presentation, or otherwise.” The presumption will apply so long as the cumulative gross receipts of the retailer for sales to Kansas customers purchasing through such referrals is at least $10,000 in the preceding 12 months. The presumption may be rebutted by a retailer submitting proof that the affiliates did not engage in activity that is significantly associated with the retailer’s ability to make and maintain a market in the state. Such a rebuttal “may consist” of sworn statements obtained from all affiliates that they did not solicit sales in the state on behalf of the retailer. The law takes effect 90 days after enactment, or on July 15, 2013. Ecommerce vendors should evaluate their Kansas affiliate relationships to determine how to respond to the law.

Florida Introduces Affiliate Nexus Legislation

For the sixth year in a row, Florida legislators introduced a bill that (like many states before it) would create a rebuttable presumption that any out-of-state Internet retailer or mail order seller which enters into an agreement with a Florida resident (an “affiliate”) for paid referrals is subject to the State’s sales and use tax.  Referrals which subject out-of-state sellers to Florida tax are broadly defined and can be via “a link on an Internet website, an in-person oral presentation, telemarketing, or otherwise.”  Out-of-state sellers who have cumulative gross receipts of $10,000 or less from the referrals would not be subject to Florida tax.  As in several other states, the bill would allow sellers to rebut the presumption that they are subject to tax by submitting evidence that the affiliates “did not engage in any activity within [Florida] which was significantly associated with the dealer’s ability to establish or maintain the dealer’s market…during the 12 months immediately before the rebuttable presumption arose.”

As we have written previously, in response to a challenge by Amazon.com to a similar law enacted in 2008 in New York, a New York State appeals court held that the law was not unconstitutional on its face because it allows a retailer to rebut the presumption of solicitation.  The court remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the law violated the Constitution’s Commerce and Due Process Clauses as applied to Amazon.com.  In the meantime, as similar affiliate nexus laws have been passed in a handful of other states, many retailers have terminated their affiliate relationships.  Also, last spring, in a case argued by George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson, an Illinois court found that Illinois’ affiliate nexus law, which does not allow an affected retailer to rebut the statute’s conclusive determination that having affiliates in the state creates nexus, violates the Commerce Clause as well as the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

California Affiliate Nexus Law Goes Into Effect

We have written frequently about the California affiliate nexus statute, AB 155, which was adopted in June 2011, but was temporarily repealed in September 2011, pending Congressional action on a bill rejecting the Quill physical presence test. Since Congress has not enacted such a law, AB155 is set to go into effect tomorrow.

The California Board of Equalization (“BOE”) undertook a lengthy rulemaking process over the past year to flesh out the requirements of the law. Much of this effort is reflected in the BOE’s newly amended version of California Regulation 1684. Here are some of the key points:

• The law provides that an affiliate relationship will create nexus only if the payment to the affiliate is based upon a completed sale of tangible personal property; i.e., a commission-based arrangement. Thus, pay-per-click payment arrangements with affiliates do not create nexus. 
• The statute, and Regulation 1684 which interprets the statute, provides that if the arrangement with the affiliate is for the purchase of advertisements to be delivered on the Internet, the retailer will not be deemed to have nexus if the affiliate does not directly or indirectly solicit customers in California through the use of flyers, newsletters, telephone calls, email, blogs, social networking sites, or other means of direct or indirect solicitation specifically targeted at potential customers in California. Thus, if a retailer places content on the website of a California affiliate that provides information regarding the retailer’s products and the affiliate links to the retailer’s website, so long as the affiliate does not make any solicitations on behalf of the retailer that specifically target CA residents, the retailer should not have nexus under the California statute. 
• Regulation 1684 provides for a safe harbor if (1) the agreement between the retailer and affiliate provides for a prohibition of California solicitation activities on behalf of the retailer, such as distributing flyers or coupons or sending emails; (2) the retailer obtains certificates annually from the California-based affiliates that it has not engaged in any such prohibited solicited activities; and (3) the retailer accepts such certificates in good faith. 

Yet Another State (Georgia) Adopts a Click-Through Nexus Law

On April 20, 2012, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed legislation revising the definition of “dealer” in the Georgia statute. Under Georgia law, a dealer is required to collect and remit sales/use tax on all taxable sales to Georgia residents.


The first change to the dealer definition is to adopt a so-called “click-through nexus” law (or “Internet affiliate nexus” law), along the lines of the New York statute enacted in 2008. Georgia is now the eighth state to adopt a click-through nexus law. As previously reported in this blog, New York was the first state to adopt a nexus click-through statute, followed by Rhode Island, North Carolina, Arkansas, Illinois, Connecticut, California and Pennsylvania. (The California statute is effective only if federal legislation is not adopted, and will go into effect on January 1, 2013). (The Pennsylvania “law,” which is an administrative rule, does not commence until September 1, 2012).

*As previously reported in our blog, on April 25, 2012, the Illinois Circuit Court ruled from the bench that the Illinois “click-though nexus” (or “Internet affiliate nexus”) statute is unconstitutional under the substantial nexus requirement of the Commerce Clause and also violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act’s moratorium against discriminatory state taxes on electronic commerce.* (As a ruling of a court in a different state, the Illinois court’s decision striking down the Illinois statute has no direct effect on the Georgia click-through nexus law, but certainly would have some relevance in any review of the statute. )

Much like the New York law, the Georgia statute, HB 386 (LC 34 3484S/AP), provides that a retailer that enters into an agreement with one or more persons who are residents of Georgia under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration based on completed sales, directly or indirectly refers potential customers to the retailer, if the retailer’s cumulative gross receipts from sales by such persons exceed more than $50,000 during the preceding twelve months. (Under the New York law, the threshold is $10,000.) If the retailer enters into such an agreement, a presumption is created that the retailer is a dealer required to collect the Georgia sales and use tax. However, the presumption may be rebutted by submitting proof that the residents with whom the person has an agreement do not engage in any activity within Georgia that is significantly associated with the person’s ability to establish or maintain a market in Georgia during the preceding twelve months. The proof may consist of sworn written statements with the residents attesting to the fact that they have not engaged in any solicitation in the state on behalf of the retailer. It is somewhat unclear when this portion of the statute goes into effect; the earliest date is July 18, 2012 but it may be as late as December 30, 2012.

In short, the Georgia statute is modeled after the New York statute. Like the New York statute, a retailer can overcome the presumption of nexus by a showing that the resident does not engage in any activity in the state to maintain a market in the state. (This is in contrast to the Connecticut and Illinois statutes, which create a per se finding of nexus if the requisite relationship is found to exist).

The new Georgia law also provides for “affiliate nexus,” similar to the recently adopted Utah statute concerning companies related through common ownership, as discussed in my article in this blog dated April 2, 2012. This part of the law goes into effect on October 1, 2012. In particular, if a retailer and any other company under common ownership or control that has substantial nexus in Georgia sells a similar line of products in the state under a similar business name or use substantially similar trademarks or service marks, then a presumption of nexus is created. Again, this presumption can be rebutted by a showing that the in-state affiliate does not engage in any in-state activities on behalf of the retailer that are significantly associated with the retailer’s ability to establish a market.

The new Georgia law does provide a safe harbor for participation in trade show activities of five days or less and if the retailer “did not derive more than $100,000 of net income from those activities during the prior calendar year.” It is unclear whether the term “deriv[ation] . . . of net income” means sales less expenses made at the trade show or whether it means sales remotely made.

In sum, online retailers and other direct marketers should carefully scrutinize their existing relationships to make sure that their companies are not vulnerable to a finding of nexus under the new Georgia law. While such review does not necessarily mean discontinuance of click-through relationships, it does require making sure that any agreement with affiliates is tailored to overcome the presumption if sales through such affiliates are greater than $50,000.

Court Rules that the Illinois Internet Affiliate Nexus Law is Unconstitutional and Violates the Internet Tax Freedom Act

Yesterday (April 25, 2012), Judge Robert Lopez Cepero of the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”) in its constitutional challenge to the Illinois "Internet affiliate nexus" statute, Public Act 96-1544 (the “Act”), which took effect in July 2011. Judge Cepero ruled from the bench, after oral argument by the parties’ counsel, that the Illinois law is both unconstitutional under the “substantial nexus” requirement of the Commerce Clause and violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act's moratorium against discriminatory state taxes on electronic commerce. The Court will enter a formal order encapsulating its rulings, although Judge Cepero indicated that he does not plan to issue a written opinion, separate from his remarks made on the record at the hearing. The Defendant, the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, is said to be reviewing his options, but is expected to appeal the ruling directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. (George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson represent the PMA in the case.)


Like other “Internet affiliate nexus” laws, the Illinois statute seeks to impose a use tax collection obligation upon out-of-state Internet retailers who enter into contracts with affiliates located in the state, under which the affiliate places a link on its website connecting Internet users to the retailer’s website, and receives commissions or other compensation based on sales made to such customers. Under the terms of the Act, any Internet retailer that realized $10,000 in annual sales from customers who reached its website through links on the sites of Illinois Internet affiliates would be required to collect Illinois use tax. The Court held, however, that the activity described in the Illinois law was not sufficient to create use tax nexus with Illinois for purposes of the Commerce Clause. The Court also held that imposing a use tax collection obligation upon Internet retailers engaged in such online linking relationships, but not on other retailers engaged in similar offline adverting arrangements, is “premature” in light of the ITFA's moratorium, which remains in effect until November 1, 2014.

Internet Retailers and Digital Businesses Should Understand the State Tax Risks Associated with Telecommuting Employees

In the increasingly “officeless” environment of the digital workplace, Internet retailers, cloud computing providers and other remote sellers should be aware of the sometimes unexpected state tax consequences associated with employees who telecommute. Although there are few reported court decisions, a vast majority of the states assert that having employees located in the state engaged in non-sales activities who telecommute from home is a sufficient presence in the state to require a company to collect the state’s corporate income or franchise tax. It is also clear that having a telecommuting employee in the state creates meaningful sales and use tax nexus risk, but whether a telecommuting employee will create a "physical presence" in the state sufficient to require the company to collect state use tax may depend upon the nature of the employee’s in-state activities on behalf of the company.


The leading case in the still-developing decisional law on telecommuting is the recently-decided Telebright Corp. v. New Jersey Division of Taxation, 424 N.J.Super. 384, 38 A.3d 604 (App. Div. 2012). In Telebright, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a Tax Court decision that the presence in the state of a software developer telecommuting on a daily basis for a Maryland company was sufficient to subject the company to an obligation to report New Jersey Business Corporation Tax (“CBT”). Id., 424 N.J.Super. at 395, 38 A.3d at 611. The employee in Telebright performed no sales functions on behalf of the company (indeed, the Tax Court noted that the company solicited no sales in New Jersey, at all), but she was involved in developing a web-based software application that the company marketed to its clients, a fact that the Appellate Division emphasized in finding that the company both was “engaged in business” under CBT statute and had sufficient nexus with the state for CBT purposes.

Of course, federal law P.L. 86-272 will still protect a company from an obligation to report a state’s corporate income tax, if the company’s in-state telecommuting employees are engaged solely in solicitation of sales for orders of tangible personal property that are approved and filled from outside the state. Many businesses that rely on telecommuting, however, are not protected by P.L. 86-272, because they sell services or computer software applications that may not be deemed “tangible personal property” under state law. Furthermore, employees telecommuting from a state engaged in activities other than solicitation (or activities strictly ancillary to solicitation), will not qualify for P.L. 86-272 immunity. Indeed, more than thirty-five state revenue departments have indicated in response to various surveys that the presence of non-sales, telecommuting employees will subject the company to an obligation to report state income tax.

With regard to state sales and use taxes a direct physical presence in a state through employees will also create a risk of use tax nexus. It is clear that if an in-state employee is engaged in sales solicitation or support activities with respect to in-state customers, s/he can create nexus under established Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington Dep’t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 231 (1987). Even the activities of non-sales employees, however, should be examined carefully to determine the level of nexus risk to the company when making a business decision about whether to engage telecommuting employees in the state employee to telecommute. In some states, a non-sales employee may not create nexus. For example, the California Board of Equalization has indicated in one Sale and Use Tax Annotation (SUTA 220.0256: “Telecommuting In-State”) (June 21, 1999) that a remote seller that had an employee engaged in web design who telecommuted from his home in California was not “engaged in business” in the state for purposes of California use tax because the telecommuter did not have any contact or involvement with customers in the state. Many other state revenue departments have, however, at least in response to informal surveys, taken a less permissive view. Remote sellers should consult carefully with their tax counsel to understands the use tax risks associated with particular telecommuting arrangements.

Pennsylvania DOR Puts Constitutionally-Suspect Affiliate Nexus Interpretation on Hold

On January 27, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue delayed until September 1, 2012 the enforcement of its recently announced (and legally questionable) position regarding affiliate nexus.

We have written frequently about state affiliate nexus statutes and proposed legislation, as well as the challenge brought by our client, the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”), against the Illinois affiliate nexus statute which took effect in July 2011. All of these affiliate nexus laws are of doubtful constitutionality. Indeed, Brann & Isaacson has argued on behalf of the PMA that the Illinois law impermissibly targets Internet performance marketing as a basis for asserting a use tax collection obligation on out-of-state retailers, in violation of both the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”). In an area of law where the authority of the states to expand their taxing power is very much in doubt, every state that has adopted an affiliate nexus law has done so through the legislative process by enacting a statute that purports to require reporting of use tax by remote sellers with no physical presence in the state.

On December 1, however, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue determined that it did not require a new affiliate nexus statute in order to require use tax collection by Internet sellers advertising online through websites located in Pennsylvania. Instead, the Department issued Sales and Use Tax Bulletin 2011-01, regarding Remote Seller Nexus. The Department asserts in the Bulletin that a variety of activities, if conducted in the state by, or on behalf of, an out-of-state company, already constitute sufficient nexus under the Commerce Clause and state law to require the remote seller to collect Pennsylvania use tax. Some of the activities cited by the Department have been the basis for a finding of nexus for an out-of-state company in prior court decisions around the country (and, presumably, have long been reflected in the Department’s enforcement practice). The Department, however, also included “affiliate nexus” on the list. The Department will now make a finding of nexus for an out-of-state company even if the company’s only activity is merely having a contractual relationship with a person located in Pennsylvania whose website has a link to the remote seller’s website, if the in-state affiliate receives “consideration” for the contractual relationship with the retailer.

Unclaimed Property Laws Often Go Overlooked by E-Marketers, But Many States Are Aggressively Enforcing Them

One set of legal obligations that are often overlooked by Internet sellers arise under states’ “unclaimed property” laws, sometimes referred to under the arcane label of “escheat.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines escheat as “the preferable right of the state to an estate left vacant, and without there being any one in existence able to make a claim thereto.” Although dense, the definition, once parsed, describes a relatively simple concept: under the laws of nearly every state, a business that is holding property on behalf of a third-party (called the “owner”) is obligated to report and turn over the unclaimed property to the state, after passage of a prescribed “dormancy” period.

Unclaimed property includes customers’ unredeemed gift certificates and gift cards, merchandise credits, and uncashed refund checks. It also includes accounts payable, payroll and benefits, shareholder dividends, and even workers’ compensation funds, among other things. Indeed, any third-party obligation that goes unredeemed may be subject to escheat. For Internet retailers, unredeemed gift obligations can be substantial (although fortunately some state laws include exemptions for gift certificates). Retailers should be aware that expiration dates on gift certificates and gift cards do not apply to states’ right of escheat and that there is no statute of limitations on escheat obligations under most states’ laws.

Storm Clouds on the Horizon for Direct Marketers Regarding Required Use Tax Collection

After the introduction in July 2011 of the “Main Street Fairness Act” by three senators from the Democratic Party, federal legislation intended to eliminate the Quill physical presence requirement for state sales and use tax collection has gathered increased support. A group of 10 Senators from both sides of the aisle introduced the “Marketplace Fairness Act” on November 9, 2011. The new bill, S.1832, is sponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Tim Johnson (D-SD), John Boozman (R-AR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Robert Corker (R-TN), and Mark Pryor (D-AR).  On October 13, 2011, Representatives Steve Womack (R-AR) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced in the House a similar, but not identical, bill called the “Marketplace Equity Act.”

As we wrote in our post on August 8, the Main Street Fairness Act, which was sponsored by Senators Durbin, Johnson, and Reed, does not provide meaningful measures to simplify the arduous burden of sales and use tax collection. The Marketplace Fairness Act (and its House counterpart) would provide even less simplification than does the Main Street Fairness Act. It is ironic that despite the unfairness of this proposed legislation to catalogers, online retailers, and other direct marketers, the Marketplace Fairness Act is more likely to pass than prior legislative efforts, because of the increased number of sponsors from both political parties, as well as the coalition of states, industry groups, and big retailers (including e-commerce giant Amazon.com), that have announced their support for this new bill. Thus, the alarm bells should be ringing loudly for Internet and other direct marketers.

Nexus of Subsidiary Not Automatically Attributable to Parent Company

Recently, a number of states have adopted statutes providing that an out-of state retailer is presumed to have nexus in the state by virtue of ownership of a subsidiary that does business in the state. See California (ABX 1, but note its implementation was delayed by AB 155); Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-26-102(3)(b)(II)); and Arkansas (Ark. Code Ann. 26-52-117(b)). While each of these state statutes provides that mere ownership creates only a presumption of nexus, which a retailer can rebut, some commentators have interpreted these laws as attributing the nexus of in-state affiliates to related out-of-state companies.

But an out-of-state retailer’s mere ownership of a company without the company acting as an agent or representative of the retailer will not create nexus for the retailer under the constitutional standard. Quill and a number of cases decided both before and after Quill stand for the proposition that mere ownership of another company that has an in-state presence does not create nexus for the parent, absent the in-state subsidiary engaging in activities on behalf of the parent to create a market in the state for the parent. We wrote an article back in 1996 that discusses the case law. See Defending Against Affiliate Nexus in Sales and Use Tax Collection Liability Cases, State Tax Notes (March/April 1996). In other words, the subsidiary must be acting as an agent or representative of the parent company in the state for the nexus of the subsidiary to be attributed to the parent.

California Governor Signs (Possibly Temporary) Affiliate Nexus Law Repeal

As we wrote recently, on September 9, the California legislature passed AB 155, which repeals (for at least the next year) the affiliate nexus provisions of the affiliate nexus law (ABX 1-28) enacted in June. The repeal may be only temporary, because the new law provides that if federal legislation overturning Quill Corp. v. North Dakota is not adopted by July 31, 2012, or if such legislation is adopted, but California does not implement the federal law’s requirements by September 14, 2012, then the affiliate nexus provisions of the repealed law, with some modifications described in our prior post, will kick back in on January 1, 2013, under the terms of AB 155.

Although Governor Brown reportedly had some misgivings regarding AB 155, he signed the bill into law earlier today. The law is effective immediately, so for now, California no longer has an affiliate nexus law. Whether federal legislation will be enacted and whether California will implement any such law’s requirements remains to be seen…

California Affiliate Nexus Law Repealed (At Least Temporarily) In Deal With Amazon

As we have previously reported, on June 28, California enacted an affiliate nexus law (ABX 1-28). Under the California law, an out-of-state retailer that has contracts with California affiliates to publish online advertisements linking consumers to the retailer’s website would have been required to collect California sales tax (or use tax) on all of its sales to California purchasers, if: (1) the in-state publishers also engaged in solicitation of customers in the state on behalf of the retailer through other means (such as by flyers, telephone calls, or e-mails) targeting California consumers; (2) the publishers of the advertisements were compensated based on sales made by the retailer; (3) over a 12 month period, the retailer realized at least $10,000 in cumulative sales to consumers accessing its site through such online ads; and (4) the retailer had California sales of at least $500,000 during such 12 month period.

Amazon.com responded to ABX 1-28 by supporting a campaign to repeal the new affiliate nexus law by citizens’ referendum, which was reportedly well on the way to gathering the necessary signatures to get the repeal measure on the ballot next year.

Performance Marketing Association Suit Challenging Illinois Affiliate Nexus Law Now in State Court

On July 27, the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”) filed a complaint in the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County, challenging the new Illinois “affiliate nexus” law (“HB 3659”). In the complaint, the PMA asserts the same claims first raised in its complaint filed in the United States District Court in Chicago on June 1. As detailed in the complaint, the PMA alleges that HB 3659 violates the Commerce Clause and impermissibly discriminates against electronic commerce in violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”).

In connection with filing the suit in state court, the PMA has voluntarily dismissed the federal court action.  The voluntary dismissal will prevent a protracted dispute with the Defendant, the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, regarding whether the federal court has jurisdiction over the case. Brann & Isaacson attorneys George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer are counsel to the PMA in the case.