Company: CXDO
Filing Date: 2025-03-04
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001654954-25-002287
Chunk: 273

Company: Crexendo, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-03-04
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 273
---
 which could increase our costs and change certain aspects of our service.

Certain states take the position that offerings by VoIP providers are intrastate and therefore subject to state regulation. We have registered as a competitive local exchange carrier (“CLEC”) in most states; however, our rates are not regulated in the same manner as traditional telephone service providers. Some states also require that we register as a seller of VoIP services even though we have registered as a CLEC. Some states argue that if the beginning and desktop devices of communications are known, and if some of these communications occur entirely within the boundaries of a state, the state can regulate that offering and may therefore add additional taxes or surcharges or regulate rates in a similar matter to traditional telephone service providers. We believe that the FCC has pre-empted states from regulating VoIP providers in the same manner as providers of traditional telecommunications services. We cannot predict how this issue will be resolved or its impact on our business at this time.

 21Table of Contents

Taxing authorities may successfully assert that we should have collected or in the future should collect sales and use, value added, or similar taxes, and any such assessments could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Jurisdictions in which we do not collect sales, use, value added, or similar taxes on VoIP services or other products may assert that such taxes are applicable, which could result in tax assessments, penalties, and interest, and may be required to collect such taxes in the future. Such tax assessments, penalties, interest, or future requirements would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Further, in June 2018, the Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. that states could impose sales tax collection obligations on out-of-state sellers even if those sellers lack any physical presence within the states imposing the sales taxes. Under Wayfair, a person requires only a “substantial nexus” with the taxing state before the state may subject the person to sales tax collection obligations therein. An increasing number of states (both before and after the publication of Wayfair) have considered or adopted laws that attempt to impose sales tax collection obligations on out-of-state sellers. The Supreme Court’s Wayfair decision has removed a significant impediment to the enactment and enforcement of these laws, and it is possible that states may seek to tax out-of-state sellers on sales that occurred in prior tax years, which could create additional administrative burdens for us, put us at a competitive disadvantage if such states do not