D.C. Circuit Cites Quill as Instructive in Analyzing the Due Process Ramifications of a National Tax Scheme

The Supreme Court’s analysis in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) has been cited favorably again, this time with regard to a Due Process challenge to a federal statute. On February 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by a plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a federal law regulating online sales of tobacco products, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Gordon v. Holder, 2011 WL559002 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011). Previewing the issues to be addressed by the District Court on remand, the Court of Appeals cited Quill as “instructive” in analyzing the plaintiff’s claim that the federal statute violates the Due Process Clause.

In a statement likely to send shivers up the spines of the members of the Governing Board of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and other advocates for federal legislation to override Quill’s “physical presence” requirement arising under the Commerce Clause, the D.C. Circuit commented that “there remains an open question whether a national authorization of disparate state levies on e-commerce renders concerns about presence and burden obsolete” as a matter of Due Process. Id. at *4 (emphasis added). While this statement, and the Court’s opinion, does not alter the analysis under Quill of the constitutionality of state tax (and tax-related) laws under the Commerce Clause, it suggests that the concerns about “presence and burden” presented in Quill are potentially also relevant to determining whether a federal law authorizing state tax levies is consistent with the Due Process Clause.

Arbitration Clauses, Class Actions and State Tax

What a funny combination of terms. You might be asking what state tax has to do with arbitration and class action suits. Two recent court decisions illustrate the connection.

In particular, a “bad day” for a corporate executive is receiving the complaint and summons for a class action lawsuit. While there have been fewer class action lawsuits in connection with state taxes than there have been in other areas of the law, the plaintiff’s bar has looked at state tax as a development opportunity and has commenced suits for inappropriate collection of state taxes. The basis commonly used for such a suit is that the state’s unfair and deceptive trade practices statute is violated by the collection of sales tax if such tax is not due. For example, a company might be collecting tax on food in a state in which food is not taxable. A better example would be collecting tax on Internet access, which is prohibited under a federal statute, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151n (1998) (“ITFA”), as amended, unless a state is grandfathered.

AT&T found out the hard way about class action lawsuits in the state tax area. It was collecting tax on Internet access services. Under the ITFA, it was prohibited from collecting such tax in all but a few states. Thus, as I wrote in my blog post of September 17, 2010, AT&T was slammed with a class action lawsuit, and settled for payment of millions of dollars of attorneys’ fees and other costs.

Maine Introduces Modified, Colorado-Style Notice and Reporting Law, Which Also Likely Violates The Commerce Clause

On February 9, 2011, the Maine Legislature introduced a bill (LD 469) which would impose upon certain out-of-state retailers a set of notice and reporting obligations that closely parallel the requirements of Colorado’s 2010 law, H.B. 10-1193. Enforcement of H.B. 10-1193 was recently enjoined by a federal judge in Denver on the grounds that such requirements are likely unconstitutional and in violation of the Commerce Clause. As we have reported in prior posts, Brann & Isaacson represents the Direct Marketing Association in the federal court challenge to the now-suspended Colorado law, after which the Maine bill is patterned.

Maine’s LD 469 includes all three of the Colorado law’s notice and reporting requirements – retailers must provide the Transactional Notice, Annual Purchase Summaries to customers, and Customer Information Reports to revenue officials – and would impose penalties on affected retailers for non-compliance with the law.  Notably, however, unlike the Colorado law, the Maine bill includes no $500 annual minimum purchase threshold to trigger the requirement that an affected retailer must send a customer an Annual Purchase Summary. Similar to Colorado’s law, under LD 469 such annual summaries to customers must include, if available, “[d]escriptions of items purchased,” as well as dates and amounts.  Also in contrast to Colorado, the report to Maine Revenue Services must include all of the information provided to each purchaser in the annual summary – thereby requiring that at least descriptions of the items purchased by customers of an affected out-of-state retailer be turned over to Maine Revenue Services. The Maine bill thus raises even more significant privacy concerns for Maine consumers buying from affected retailers than does the privacy-invading Colorado law.

A Reminder About The State Tax Implications of Passive Partnership Interests: U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Review State Court Ruling That Mere Partnership Interest Creates Income Tax Nexus

E-commerce companies that have affiliates doing business as (or even just investment interests in) partnerships or other pass-through entities in states in which the e-commerce company has no direct presence should be aware that such partnership interests may be deemed to create income tax nexus for the company.  A number of state laws and regulations provide that ownership in a pass-through entity establishes nexus for the owner.  See, e.g., 34 TAC Sec. 3.586(c)(13) [Texas]; 830 CMR 63.39.1(8) [Massachusetts]. To date, state tax tribunals have agreed. See, e.g., Shell Gas Gathering Corp. #2, N.Y. Tax Appeals Tribunal, DTA Nos. 821569 and 921570 (Sept. 23, 2010).

DMA Wins Landmark Injunction Against State of Colorado

On behalf of the Direct Marketing Association, Brann & Isaacson partners George Isaacson and Matthew Schaefer won a landmark preliminary injunction in federal court in a lawsuit that affects thousands of direct marketers across the country. The ruling prohibits the State of Colorado from enforcing its controversial new law, H.B. 10-1193, that required direct marketers to -- among other things -- report to the state the names, addresses, and purchase amounts of their customers.

To be clear, so long as the injunction remains in place, out-of-state retailers that do not have nexus with Colorado and do not collect Colorado sales tax are no longer required to: (1) give notice to their Colorado customers, in connection with each sale, that the customer must report Colorado use tax (the “Transactional Notice”); (2) send via First Class mail by January 31, to each customer that purchased more than $500 of goods for delivery to Colorado during 2010, a summary of their purchases for the year (the “Annual Purchase Summary”); or (3) submit a report to the Colorado Department of Revenue, by March 1, listing the name, billing and shipping addresses, and total amount of purchases of all customers who purchased goods for delivery to Colorado (the “Customer Information Report”).  See http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue/REVX/1251581938320.

The DMA argued that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by (a) imposing discriminatory obligations upon out-of-state retailers that do not apply to in-state Colorado retailers, and (b) unduly burdening interstate commerce under principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). The Court accepted these arguments in finding that the DMA had a likelihood of success on both Commerce Clause counts, and concluded that out-of-state retailers subject to the new law would suffer irreparable harm if enforcement of the statute is not barred.

The preliminary injunction entered by the Court does not end the case, but it effectively suspends the law while the litigation continues and until the Court makes a final ruling regarding the law’s constitutionality.

You can read a copy of the order here.

Read previous posts about the lawsuit here and here.

DMA’s Constitutional Challenge to Colorado’s Notice and Reporting Law Will Be Argued In Federal District Court on January 13

A happy new year to our readers. Many internet and catalog retailers have been following with interest the constitutional challenge of the Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) to Colorado’s new notice and reporting law, H.B. 10-1193, enacted in 2010. In addition to burdensome consumer notice requirements that went into effect last year, the law requires out-of-state retailers that do not collect Colorado sales and use tax to send (by January 31, 2011) annual purchase summaries to customers purchasing $500 or more of goods for shipment to Colorado and, worst of all, to file (by March 1, 2011) with the Colorado Department of Revenue a listing of all of the retailer’s customers who have purchased goods for shipment to a Colorado location, regardless of where the customer resides.

As we previously reported (see our July 2, 2010 post), the DMA contends that the Colorado law violates multiple provisions of the United States Constitution, because it discriminates against interstate commerce, exceeds the State’s regulatory authority over out-of-state businesses, violates the privacy rights of Colorado consumers, infringes the free speech and due process rights of retailers and consumers, and deprives retailers of their valuable customer list information without due process or fair compensation. The DMA has filed a motion for preliminary injunction based on the law’s violations of the Commerce Clause, asking the Court to suspend enforcement of the law’s notice and reporting requirements pending a full adjudication of the law’s constitutionality.

The federal District Court for the District of Colorado has scheduled a hearing on the DMA’s motion to be held on January 13, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in Denver. B&I senior partner and lead counsel for the DMA, George Isaacson, will argue the motion on behalf of the DMA. We will report on further developments after the hearing.

Distribution of Promotional Materials in Indiana is Not Taxable

In D.H. Holmes Company, Ltd. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state did not violate the Commerce Clause when it imposed a use tax on the distribution of catalogs and other promotional materials mailed from outside of the state since the company on whose behalf the catalogs were distributed had nexus with the state. Prior to that date, there were some state courts and tax commentators which had declared that a destination state’s imposition of tax on catalogs printed and mailed from outside of the state to residents of the state violated the Commerce Clause.

As a result of the D.H. Holmes decision, a large number of states have imposed a use tax on promotional materials distributed in their state on behalf of a company with nexus in the state (e.g. Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee).  There have been some exceptions to this rule (See e.g., Michigan (Sharper Image Corp. v. Department of Treasury, 550 N.W.2d 596 (1996)), New York, Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania).

Recently, the Indiana Tax Court ruled in the case of AOL, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue that the distribution of CD ROMs and other marketing materials on behalf of AOL by AOL’s printer and assembly house was not taxable. The basis for the decision was that AOL had supplied the components—the CD ROM discs, paper, and other components of CD ROM packages—to the assembly house and printer. Thus, the assembly house and printer were merely providing a service, and not selling tangible personal property. Under the Indiana statute, the provision of services is not taxable. It is only the sale of tangible personal property that is taxable. Nor were the components themselves taxable because only the final CD ROM package and printed materials were distributed in Indiana. The components were transformed by the assembly houses and printers into final products.

This decision is in line with prior decisions of the Indiana Tax Court, including Ameritech Publ’g, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 916 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009) and Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 819 N.E.2d 913 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004).  Thus, any direct marketer which has been distributing promotional materials in Indiana and paying use tax on those promotional materials should consider filing a claim for refund for taxes paid if the direct marketer supplied the underlying raw materials to the printer or other party assembling the promotional materials.