Washington Court Rules On Statutory Exclusion For Internet Service, Awards Refund To Online Services Provider

On June 4, 2013, the Washington Superior Court issued a decision that AOL, Inc. is entitled to a multi–million dollar refund of sales tax paid on services that AOL purchased for use in providing Internet access and online services to its members during the period 2002-2006. In response to an appeal by the Washington Department of Revenue from a decision of the Washington Board of Tax Appeal rendered in AOL’s favor, the Superior Court agreed with the arguments made by AOL. The company asserted the services at issue were “internet services” under RCW 82.04.297(3), and thus excluded from the statutory definition of taxable “network telephone service” under RCW 82.04.065(2) in effect during the time period in question. The Washington Department of Revenue had argued that the services AOL purchased were nothing more than transmission services, subject to Washington sales tax. The Court rejected the Department’s arguments, finding that AOL met each and every independent subpart of the exclusion for internet services. Consequently, the Court held that the services were not subject to taxation under the applicable state statute. As a result, the Court concluded that the Board properly awarded AOL a full refund of all amounts paid to the Department.

AOL was represented in the case by Martin Eisenstein and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson.

Amazon Wins First Amendment Challenge to North Carolina DOR Information Request

Amazon.com LLC (“Amazon”) has prevailed in its highly-publicized court challenge to a demand by the North Carolina Department of Revenue for information regarding purchases made by Amazon’s North Carolina customers during the period August 1, 2003 to February 28, 2010. The Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington (where Amazon is headquartered) issued a ruling on October 25, 2010, in Amazon.com LLC v. Kenneth R. Lay, in his capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue, Case No. C10-664 MJP. The ruling enjoins the North Carolina DOR from requiring that Amazon provide the Department with names and addresses of its North Carolina customers and details regarding the products they purchased from Amazon.

The Department, in connection with an investigation of Amazon’s possible liability for uncollected use tax on sales to North Carolina residents, had requested that Amazon provide it “all information for all sales to customers with a North Carolina shipping address” for the six-and-a-half year period under examination. Amazon provided the DOR detailed records of products shipped to North Carolina for the entire period, but refused to provide the names or personal information of its customers purchasing such products. When the Department pressed for the information, Amazon sued in federal court, asserting that the Department’s request violated the First Amendment by chilling the exercise of the freedom of speech of Amazon’s customers (and of Amazon itself). On October 25, the Court agreed.

Washington State Partially Modifies Unreasonable “Trailing Nexus” Rule

The Washington Department of Revenue (“DOR”), based on a very thin reed of statutory support, has long taken the position that once an out-of-state business has engaged in activity in Washington sufficient to create nexus with the State, even if it thereafter ceases all activity in the State, the out-of-state company continues to have nexus with Washington for a period of at least four years after ceasing activity there (the remainder of the calendar year plus four more years), for purposes of both Washington’s sales tax and its Business & Occupation (“B&O”) tax. See WAC 458-20-193(7), (8). This “trailing nexus” rule is fundamentally inconsistent with the Commerce Clause’s requirement that an out-of-state company must have a physical presence in a state in order for the state to impose tax collection and reporting obligations on it, as the Supreme Court affirmed in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S 298 (1992).

This summer, the Washington State legislature revised the Washington B&O tax statute to include a provision which makes it clear that a company which stops doing business in Washington state will now be deemed to have “trailing nexus” for B&O purposes for only the remainder of the calendar year in which it stops doing business and for one additional year. See RCW 82.04.220. Although even a one-year trailing nexus rule is highly suspect as a matter of constitutional law, it is certainly an improvement over the DOR’s four-plus year rule, which the DOR has announced it intends to continue to apply to the Washington sales tax. See DOR Special Notice (September 10, 2010).

Online and multi-channel direct marketers should be aware of this unreasonable, extended nexus provision as creating additional risks and burdens with regard to any business activity or connection involving Washington.

Magazine Publishers Beware of the New Washington B&O Tax Law

As previously discussed in our blog post dated May 24, 2010, several states have taken the position that the Quill nexus standard applies only to sales and use tax.  State courts in New Jersey (Lanco, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 188 N.J. 380, 908 A.2d 176 (2006)), West Virginia (Tax Commissioner v. MBNA America Bank, 220 W.Va. 163, 640 S.E.2d 226 (2006)), and South Carolina (Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (1993) (cert denied, 114 S.Ct. 550 (1993)) have held that economic presence (i.e., sales to the state without a physical presence in the state) is sufficient to establish nexus for state income tax.   As written in the May 24 blog post, there are other decisions (e.g. Commonwealth Edison v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 101 S.Ct. 2946 (1981)) that apply the Quill/Bellas Hess physical presence test to taxes other than sales tax.

By legislation, other states have adopted a gross receipts tax based on economic presence.  The Ohio Commercial Activity Tax, the Michigan Business Tax and the Texas Margin Tax are examples.  Recently, the State of Washington amended its B&O Tax, which is a gross receipts tax, with regard to the “service classification,” to require an economic nexus standard, based upon the level of service revenues to Washington.  Washington has taken an expansive view of businesses subject to the service revenue classification, which now includes businesses that publish periodicals or magazines with respect to the advertising income that such publications derive.  Since the nexus standard is quite low, this is likely to be a “sleeping dog” for most publishers.

NEXUS: Quill Physical Presence Test Should Apply to Gross Receipts Taxes

Since National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), was decided in 1967, states have attempted to avoid the physical presence test of nexus that the National Bellas Hess case established.  Thus, in the 1980’s, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue argued that that our client, L. L. Bean, Inc., was required to collect Pennsylvania sales and use tax on all of its sales into the state because the mail order industry had changed since National Bellas Hess was decided.  The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court squarely rejected this challenge to National Bellas Hess.  L. L. Bean, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 516 A.2d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

Similarly, the State of California threatened assessment of 300 direct marketers on the ground that they had nexus with California because of their use of 1-800 numbers and acceptance of credit cards.  On behalf of the Direct Marketing Association, Brann & Isaacson sued in federal court, and the Ninth Circuit issued a judgment in favor of the DMA, on behalf of its members, declaring that in the absence of a physical presence in a state, a company is not liable for sales and use tax in that state.  DMA v. Bennett, 916 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 (1991).

The states’ next test case, Quill v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (Brann & Isaacson filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the DMA in Quill), was yet another unsuccessful effort by the states to overrule and/or limit the physical presence test.

The states’ latest efforts to limit the nexus test under the Commerce Clause by adoption of an economic presence test to measure nexus for gross receipts tax should also be rejected.