Source: http://community.cchgroup.com/community/corporations/the-salt-minds-blog/blog/authors/laura.leelun
Timestamp: 2014-07-28 16:23:27
Document Index: 48230556

Matched Legal Cases: ['§22', '§22', '§22', '§22', '§1', '§1']

11 Posts authored by: Laura LeeLun
Washington Adopts Rules to Regulate Taxation of Marijuana Sales Posted by
Laura LeeLun Oct 17, 2013
On October 16, 2013, the Washington State Liquor Control Board adopted rules to implement Initiative 502, approved by voters in November 2012, which legalized the sale of marijuana and authorized the imposition of excise taxes and license fees. The rules advise that a 30-day registration period will open for all license types on November 18, 2013. A three month state residency requirement is in place for all license applicants. The residency requirement also applies to all members of partnerships, employee cooperatives, associations, nonprofit corporations, corporations and limited liability companies applying for licenses. License applicants must submit a signed attestation that they are current on taxes owed to the Washington Department of Revenue as an individual or as part of any entity in which they have an ownership interest. Initiative 502 creates three new licenses, for marijuana producers, processors, and retailers. The application fee for each license is $250, and the annual renewal fee is $1,000. An excise tax of 25% will be imposed on each licensed retail sale of marijuana/marijuana infused product. This tax constitutes part of the total retail price and is in addition to all state and local sales and use taxes. A 25% excise tax will also be imposed on each sale between a licensed producer and licensed processor, and on each sale between a licensed processor to a licensed retailer. All licensees must submit monthly reports and payments to the board by the 20th day of the month for the previous month. The reports must be filed separately for each marijuana license held. All records must be maintained and available for review for a three-year period. On August 29, 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would permit the states to create a regime that would regulate the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana by adults.
Amazon Agrees to Collect Arizona Sales Tax Posted by
Laura LeeLun Oct 30, 2012
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Amazon.com has disclosed that it has agreed to begin collecting the 6.6% Arizona sales tax in 2013. Product sales will be subject to tax beginning February 1, and digital sales will be taxed beginning in July. The agreement is part of a settlement of a dispute arising out of a $53 million bill the state submitted to Amazon in November 2011 for taxes and interest owed on sales from March 2006 to January 1, 2011. Amazon had contested liability despite operating four distribution centers in Arizona. In addition to agreeing to collect taxes in the future, the online retailer paid an undisclosed sum to settle the claim. According to Amazon, it currently collects sales tax in eight states: California, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Collection of sales tax in New Jersey will commence July 1, 2013, and in Virginia on September 1, 2013. The retailer will also begin collecting tax in Indiana, Nevada, and Tennessee on January 1, 2014, and in South Carolina on January 1, 2016. 618 Views
South Carolina Enacts Data Center Exemption Posted by
Laura LeeLun Jun 15, 2012
On June 7, 2012, a sales and use tax exemption was enacted for original or replacement computers, computer equipment, computer hardware and software purchases, and electricity and business property used at a data center. A "data center" is defined as a new or existing facility at a single South Carolina location (1) that provides infrastructure for hosting or data processing services; (2) where the following conditions are met: (a) a taxpayer invests at least $50 million in real or personal property or both over five years, or (b) one or more taxpayers invests a minimum aggregate capital investment of at least $75 million in real or personal property or both over five years; (3) that is certified by the Department of Commerce; (4) where a taxpayer creates at least 25 full-time jobs with an average cash compensation level of 150% of the per capita income of the state or of the county in which the facility is located, whichever is lower; and (5) where the jobs are maintained for three consecutive years after the facility is certified. If a taxpayer fails to meet the capital investment and job creation requirements a the end of the five year period, the Department of Revenue may assess any state or local sales or use tax due on items purchased. Also, if a taxpayer meets these requirements but subsequently fails to maintain the number of full time jobs at the required compensation levels, the exemption for computer equipment, computer hardware, and software purchases will be suspended until the jobs requirements are met. The electricity exemption will be limited to a percentage of the sales price, calculated by dividing the number of qualifying jobs by twenty-five. The exemption is only available to data centers certified prior to January 1, 2032.
Washington Supermajority Vote Requirement Ruled Unconstitutional Posted by
Laura LeeLun Jun 6, 2012
On May 30, 2012, the Superior Court of King County, in League of Education Voters v. Washington, has found the Washington statute requiring that legislation seeking to increase taxes be passed by two-thirds of both houses to be unconstitutional. The supermajority requirement was originally approved by voters via Initiative Measure 601 in 1993 and was subsequently re-enacted by three separate ballot measures, the most recent being I-1053 in 2011. The court found that there was an actual dispute underlying the declaratory judgment action because the House was unable to pass SHB 2078 in 2011 with a simple majority. SHB 2078 would have funded class size reductions by narrowing the tax deductions for large banks and other financial institutions. The court held that the proper method of imposing a supermajority requirement is to amend the Washington Constitution as opposed to pursuing the initiative process. Art II, §22, of the Washington Constitution expressly provides that no bill may become law without a majority vote. The plain language of Art II, §22, reflects that the Legislature does not have the authority to impose a more strict voting requirement. Furthermore, the Constitution contains 16 provisions with supermajority vote requirements, and, therefore, it can be presumed that the absence of such supermajority language in Art II, §22, was intentional. The framers' concern with special interests and the potential impact of a strong legislative lobby also indicates that the majority requirement contained in Art II, §22, was not intended as a minimum threshold that would allow a minority of legislators to thwart the will of the majority. The court also determined that the mandatory referendum requirement contained in RCW 43.135.034 is unconstitutional. The statute provides that tax increases that exceed the state expenditure limit must be submitted to the voters for approval. However, Art. II, §1, requires that before legislative action may be subject to a referendum, a petition be circulated and signed by 4% of the votes cast for the office of governor in the last election. In addition, by requiring that such tax increases be sent to voters, the mandate infringes upon future legislatures' plenary power to enact legislation under Art. II, §1. The proper method of imposing a mandatory referendum requirement is to amend the Washington Constitution.
New York Attorney General Files Tax Fraud Action Against Sprint Posted by
Laura LeeLun Apr 30, 2012
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has filed a lawsuit against Sprint Nextel Corp., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Nextel of New York, Inc., and Nextel Partners of Upstate New York, Inc. (collectively "Sprint") alleging that Sprint knowingly underpaid state and local sales taxes on flat-rate access charges for wireless calling plans in an amount exceeding $100 million. The complaint, filed April 19, 2012 in the New York state supreme court, alleges that as of July 2005, Sprint has avoided its sales tax obligations on approximately 25% of its receipts for flat-rate calling plans. New York has imposed sales taxes on fixed monthly charges for wireless voice services since August 2002. Such charges are taxable regardless of whether the calls are intrastate, interstate, or international in nature. The complaint asserts that Sprint categorized part of its fixed monthly charges as charges for interstate calls charged on a per-minute basis. Such charges, unlike fixed monthly charges, are not taxable in New York. The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the New York False Claims Act, which is the only such Act in the nation that expressly includes tax fraud within its scope. The Act permits triple damages in addition to penalties and attorneys' fees. If found liable, Sprint could receive a judgment in excess of $300 million. This lawsuit is the result of a whistleblower, or "qui tam" action filed March 2011. After an investigation was conducted by the Taxpayer Protection Bureau and the Department of Taxation and Finance, the Attorney General opted to file suit, effectively superseding the whistleblower action. 102 Views
tax_fraud,
A concurrent resolution (HCR 2043 ) has been introduced in the Arizona House of Representatives that proposes to amend the state constitution by requiring a supermajority vote from electors to approve a new tax. The resolution mandates that two-thirds of qualified voters approve any initiative, referendum, or proposed constitutional amendment that provides for the following: -a new tax;-an increase to an existing tax rate;-the reduction or elimination of an existing tax deduction, exemption, exclusion, or credit; or-the establishment of a special taxing district. The resolution would make the two-thirds requirement retroactive to November 5, 2002. However, as reported by the East Valley Tribune, Representative David Stevens has indicated an intent to remove the retroactivity language when the resolution moves to the full House for consideration. If approved, the resolution would be submitted to voters at the November 2012 general election. Arizona already requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature to enact a net increase in state tax revenue. 30 Views
Nevada Casinos Lose Bet on Comped Meals Posted by
Laura LeeLun Jan 24, 2012
As reported by the Las Vegas Sun, the Nevada Tax Commission has ruled that casinos must pay sales tax on complimentary meals extended to players and employees. The 6-1 decision rejected an appeal by Boyd Gaming Corp. and its 12 casinos in Clark County. The commission decided that sales tax should be based on the retail price of the meal. The Department of Taxation argued that money need not change hands in order for there to be a sale. It contended that "consideration" was present as the casino patrons had to gamble in order to qualify for the complimentary meals, and the employee meals were bargained for as union contracts often include provisions for free meals. In the 2008 Sparks Nugget case, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the department could not impose use tax on complimentary meals; however, it noted that sales tax may be imposed if consideration for such meals could be properly demonstrated. 22 Views
New Jersey Peels Back its Cosmetic Procedures Tax Posted by
Laura LeeLun Jan 19, 2012
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has signed legislation (S.B. 1988 ) phasing out the state's 6% tax on cosmetic medical procedures (the "Botox tax"). The tax will be reduced to 4% on July 1, 2012, 2% on July 1, 2013, and will be eliminated altogether for procedures performed on and after July 1, 2014. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee , the tax generated $10.8 million in the last fiscal year. However, since its enactment in 2004, it has been found to have placed an administrative burden on the medical offices tasked with collecting the tax and the state agencies responsible for its enforcement. Examples of taxable cosmetic procedures include cosmetic surgery, hair transplants, cosmetic injections, chemical peels, and laser hair removal.Currently, New Jersey and Connecticut are the only states in the Northeast that impose a tax on cosmetic procedures. 22 Views
Affiliate's Sale of Gift Cards Results in Nexus for Mail Order Retailer Posted by
Laura LeeLun Jan 11, 2012
The Washington Department of Revenue has ruled that an out-of-state mail order retailer had substantial nexus with the state for purposes of retail sales tax and business and occupation tax based on the activities of its in-state affiliate. The mail order retailer had no employees or inventory in Washington. However, its in-state affiliate, which operated under the same business name, sold gift cards that could be redeemed via mail order, online, or at the retail store. When a gift card was redeemed, the sale was recorded in the financial records of the appropriate subsidiary. Therefore, by selling the gift cards, the affiliate was actually facilitating sales on behalf of the mail order retailer. Furthermore, the affiliate distributed the mail order retailer's catalogs and assisted its customers with returns by contacting customer service to request free shipping labels. The department concluded that these activities were significantly associated with the ability of the mail order retailer to establish or maintain a market for sales in <!<st1:State>><!<st1:place>>Washington<!</st1:place>><!</st1:State>>. Click the link below to view the ruling. WA_Tax_Determination_No._10-0057.pdf <!<o:p>><!</o:p>> </div> 46 Views