Title: Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12741
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: February 5, 2020

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12741 
 
CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., & another1  vs.  COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     October 4, 2019. - February 5, 2020. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, 
& Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Taxation, Sales tax.  Personal Property. 
 
 
 
 
Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for 
direct appellate review. 
 
 
 
Mark C. Fleming (Matthew D. Schnall & Elizabeth A. Bewley 
also present) for the taxpayer. 
 
Pierce O. Cray, Assistant Attorney General (Marikae G. Toye 
also present) for Commissioner of Revenue. 
 
Ben Robbins & Martin J. Newhouse, for New England Legal 
Foundation, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
 
CYPHER, J.  This case concerns whether fees charged for 
subscriptions to use online software products are subject to 
                     
1 GetGo, Inc., as successor in interest to Citrix Systems, 
Inc. 
2 
 
 
Massachusetts sales tax.  Citrix Systems, Inc.2 (Citrix), sold 
subscriptions for three online software products that enabled 
users of the software to have some level of access to a remote 
computer, depending on the specific product.  After determining 
that Citrix's subscription fees constituted sales of software 
subject to sales tax, the Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) 
assessed sales tax against Citrix for the taxable periods April 
2007 through June 2009 and October 2009 through December 2011 
(relevant taxable periods).  The Appellate Tax Board (board) 
upheld the sales tax assessments.  The central issue before us 
is whether the receipts from sales of subscriptions for the 
online software products were subject to sales tax under G. L. 
c. 64H, §§ 1-2 (statute), and 830 Code Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3 
(2006) (regulation).  We hold that the subscription fees were 
subject to sales tax and affirm the board's decision.3 
 
Background.  1.  The online products.  At issue in this 
case are taxes assessed on subscriptions Citrix sold for three 
of its online software products.  During the relevant taxable 
periods, Citrix sold subscriptions for three online software 
products, "GoToMyPC," "GoToAssist," and "GoToMeeting" 
                     
 
2 Citrix Systems, Inc. (Citrix), is a publicly traded 
Delaware corporation doing business in Massachusetts and 
elsewhere. 
 
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted in support of 
Citrix by the New England Legal Foundation. 
3 
 
 
(collectively, online products).  While the specific functions 
of each online product vary, a shared attribute of the online 
products is that they create and maintain a screen-sharing 
connection between a host computer and one or more remote 
computers connected to the Internet.4  The online products are 
not customized, and the board noted that "[t]here is no dispute 
that the [o]nline [p]roducts constitute software within the 
meaning of [G. L. c.] 64H." 
 
When using the online products, the host computer runs its 
own operating system and software applications.  A screen-
sharing connection allows the user of a remote computer to see 
the screen output of a host computer and share access to any 
input controls, such as a keyboard or mouse.  Citrix does not 
                     
 
4 The statement of agreed facts that the parties submitted 
to the board describes the online products as follows.  
"GoToMyPC" "allows users to securely access and operate their 
personal computers from a remote location or device that 
securely connects to the user's personal computer through 
Citrix's web servers.  Both the host computer and the remote 
computer or device are typically owned or controlled by the 
customer."  "GoToAssist" "allows users to share screen and input 
control access to a computer in real time for purposes of 
facilitating technical support.  The remote computer is 
typically owned or controlled by a technical support 
professional, who is Citrix's customer, and the host computer is 
owned or controlled by a third party who is the recipient of the 
technical support."  "GoToMeeting" "permit[s] users to share 
screen access and control for purposes of online presentations, 
demonstrations and collaboration.  The host computer is owned or 
controlled by a meeting organizer who is Citrix's customer; the 
remote computers are owned or controlled by third parties who 
are participating in the meeting." 
4 
 
 
provide its customers with a computer and does not allow its 
proprietary software to be downloaded or otherwise transmitted 
to its users' computers.  In order for Citrix's products to 
function, users must download and install "Endpoint Software" 
onto the host computer and the remote computer.5 
 
Citrix uses a subscription based model for its online 
products, with customers paying monthly or annual subscription 
fees for "access and use" of selected online products.  Citrix's 
technical operations team is responsible for the maintenance, 
configuration, updating, and control of the Citrix network 
hardware and the proprietary software running on the Citrix 
servers.  In addition, Citrix provides customer service support. 
 
2.  Prior proceedings.  Citrix timely filed a Department of 
Revenue Form ST-9, titled "Sales and Use Tax Return," for each 
of the relevant taxable periods.  In 2011, after an audit of 
Citrix's tax returns for the months of April 2007 through June 
2009, the commissioner issued a notice of intent to assess, 
followed by a notice of assessment in 2012, reflecting tax 
assessments and penalties for those months.6  In response, in 
                     
 
5 The Endpoint Software is free to download by both 
customers and noncustomers and is necessary to use each of the 
online products, and its utility is limited to allowing users to 
connect to Citrix's network. 
 
 
6 Between the notice of intent to assess and the notice of 
assessment, in response to a letter ruling request from Citrix, 
the commissioner promulgated Letter Ruling 12-10:  Screen 
5 
 
 
2012 Citrix filed an application for abatement, which the 
commissioner denied.  Citrix timely filed a petition with the 
board, see G. L. c. 62C, § 39, appealing from the commissioner's 
refusal to grant the abatements for April 2007 through June 
2009. 
 
In 2014, the commissioner issued another notice of intent 
to assess to Citrix, followed by a notice of assessment, 
reflecting tax assessments and penalties for the months of 
October 2009 through December 2011.  Citrix filed an application 
for abatement for this period, which the commissioner also 
denied.  Citrix timely filed a petition with the board, 
appealing from the commissioner's refusal to grant this second 
abatement request. 
 
In February 2016, the board heard the two appeals together.  
As part of the proceedings before the board, the board received 
evidence on the issue whether Citrix's business model involved 
taxable transfers of software.  The parties submitted a 
                     
Sharing Software and the Massachusetts Sales/Use Tax (Sept. 25, 
2012) (Letter Ruling 12-10).  See 830 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 62C.3.1(6)(b), (i) (2017) ("A Letter Ruling is an 'advisory 
ruling' . . . that interprets and applies the Massachusetts tax 
laws to a specific transaction or other set of facts," and "[a] 
taxpayer may rely on a Letter Ruling issued to that taxpayer").  
Letter Ruling 12-10 stated that the online products constituted 
prewritten software and "that upon payment of the subscription 
fee for [the online products], the customer is purchasing the 
right to use [Citrix's] software and the tools provided 
therewith, and such purchases are subject to the sales tax when 
sold to customers located in Massachusetts." 
6 
 
 
statement of agreed facts and presented exhibits at the hearing, 
and Citrix presented testimony from its vice-president of 
technology operations.7 
 
3.  The Appellate Tax Board decision.  In April 2017, the 
board issued its decision upholding the tax assessment against 
Citrix, and issued its findings of fact and report in November 
2018.  The board found that the online products "constituted 
standardized software and, in turn, tangible personal property 
within the meaning of G. L. c. 64H, § 1," and that "the sales of 
the [o]nline [p]roducts . . . were sales of tangible personal 
property subject to the sales tax pursuant to G. L. c. 64H, §§ 1 
and 2."  The board rejected two primary arguments raised by 
Citrix:  (1) because there was no "transfer" of software as 
required by the statute, there was no taxable sale of software, 
and (2) Citrix's sales of the online products constitute sales 
of services and not of tangible personal property.  In rejecting 
Citrix's arguments, the board relied on the language and 
legislative history of the statute, the language of the 
regulation, and the nature of Citrix's business model. 
                     
 
7 The board also heard evidence regarding whether Citrix's 
subscription fees were subject to sales tax by virtue of being 
sales of telecommunications services.  See G. L. c. 64H, §§ 1, 2 
(deeming services taxable and defining "services" to include 
only "telecommunications services").  However, the board did not 
address the telecommunications issue in its decision. 
7 
 
 
 
In its decision, the board looked to the regulatory 
language that "transfers of rights to use software installed on 
a remote server" are "[t]axable transfers of prewritten 
software" that are "generally subject to the Massachusetts sales 
tax."  830 Code. Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(3)(a).  The board found 
that the phrase "transfers of rights to use software installed 
on a remote server" "clearly applies to the transactions at 
issue in these appeals" and that the "[c]ommissioner's 
construction is wholly consistent with the plain terms of the 
statute."  As such, the board rejected Citrix's argument that 
the regulation improperly extended the statute's reach to remote 
access transactions.  The board further found that the object of 
Citrix's subscription fees was for customers to "acquire access 
to and use of" Citrix's products, rejecting Citrix's argument 
that the true object of the subscription fees was the provision 
of a service.  Accordingly, the board "found and ruled that 
Citrix's sales of the [o]nline [p]roducts were subject to the 
sales tax pursuant to G. L. c. 64H, §§ 1 and 2."  Citrix 
appealed therefrom, and we granted its motion for direct 
appellate review. 
 
Discussion.  1.  Applicability of the regulation.  Citrix 
argues that the regulation provisions concerning remote servers 
"did not (and could not, given the statutory text) eliminate the 
requirement that there be a 'transfer of title or possession' 
8 
 
 
for a transaction to constitute a sale."8  See G. L. c. 64H, 
§§ 1, 2.  Therefore, Citrix contends, its subscription fees were 
not taxable transfers because the transfers did not involve any 
actual transfer of title to, or possession of, the online 
products.  Instead, Citrix retained control over the software 
and hardware that it used to facilitate remote access between 
its customers' computers.  As such, Citrix characterizes its 
offerings as nontaxable services rather than taxable transfers. 
The commissioner counters that the regulation provides a 
straightforward resolution to the issue.  The commissioner 
contends that Citrix was selling the right to access and use 
software installed on the Citrix remote servers, which is 
precisely what the text of the regulation covers.  See 830 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(3)(a), (14)(a).  For the reasons that 
follow, we hold that the fees charged for subscriptions to use 
the online products are subject to Massachusetts sales tax.9 
                     
 
8 Citrix does not challenge the regulation as ultra vires. 
 
 
9 As an initial matter, we hold that the board properly 
relied on the regulation in determining whether Citrix's sale of 
subscriptions for the online products was subject to the 
Massachusetts sales tax.  See Smith v. Commissioner of 
Transitional Assistance, 431 Mass. 638, 646 (2000) ("regulations 
are not to be declared void unless their provisions cannot by 
any reasonable construction be interpreted in harmony with the 
legislative mandate" [quotation omitted]).  As noted, Citrix did 
not challenge the regulation as ultra vires. 
9 
 
 
a.  Standard of review.  In reviewing the board's decision, 
"[w]e uphold findings of fact of the board that are supported by 
substantial evidence.  We review conclusions of law, including 
questions of statutory construction, de novo."  Shrine of Our 
Lady of La Salette Inc. v. Assessors of Attleboro, 476 Mass. 
690, 696 (2017), quoting New England Forestry Found., Inc. v. 
Assessors of Hawley, 468 Mass. 138, 149 (2014).  See Boston 
Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Commissioner of Revenue, 443 Mass. 
276, 285 (2005) ("We will not modify or reverse a decision of 
the board if the decision is based on both substantial evidence 
and a correct application of the law"). 
 
Tax statutes are strictly construed, with ambiguity 
resolved in favor of the taxpayer.  See Dental Serv. of Mass., 
Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 479 Mass. 304, 310 (2018).  
That being said, we give weight to the board's interpretation of 
tax statutes, "because the board is an agency charged with 
administering the tax law and has expertise in tax matters" 
(quotation omitted).  AA Transp. Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 
454 Mass. 114, 119 (2009) (upholding board's reasonable 
interpretation of ambiguous provision in tax statute).  
Moreover, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing its 
right to an abatement, and "[t]his obligation is not a light 
one."  Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n, 443 Mass. at 285. 
10 
 
 
b.  Statutory framework.  General Laws c. 64H, § 2, 
provides that "[a]n excise is hereby imposed upon sales at 
retail in the commonwealth . . . of tangible personal property 
or of services performed in the commonwealth."  See G. L. 
c. 64H, § 1 ("sale" includes "any transfer of title or 
possession . . . of tangible personal property or the 
performance of services for a consideration," and "services" is 
"limited to telecommunications services").  "[A] transfer of 
tangible personal property" includes "[a] transfer of 
standardized computer software, including but not limited to 
electronic, telephonic, or similar transfer."  Id.  As such, 
sales of standardized computer software are subject to sales tax 
in Massachusetts.  G. L. c. 64H, §§ 1, 2. 
 
c.  Legislative history of G. L. c. 64H.  Before the 
Legislature's 2005 amendment to G. L. c. 64H (2005 amendment), 
the method by which software was delivered determined whether 
standardized software was subject to sales tax in the 
Commonwealth.  See Department of Revenue Directive 01-3 (May 8, 
2001) (sales tax applied to "physical transfer of pre-written 
'canned' software for a consideration" but not to purely 
electronic transfers of software or "load and leave" 
transactions whereby vendor installed software on customer's 
computer but retained possession of medium used to install 
software).  Between the statute's enactment in 1966, see St. 
11 
 
 
1966, c. 14, and the 2005 amendment, administrative and judicial 
interpretations demonstrated the emphasis placed on the method 
of delivery.  A short time after the passage of the statute, an 
emergency regulation promulgated by the State Tax Commission 
required a transfer of possession for a rental or lease 
transaction to be taxable.  Emergency Regulation No. 3(3) (Apr. 
28, 1966) (transfer of possession required customer to assume 
"control or direction" of subject property).  And before 2005, 
this court held that the transfer of title or possession was a 
hallmark of a taxable sale.  See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. 
Commissioner of Revenue, 439 Mass. 629, 637-639 (2003) (taxable 
sale occurred within Massachusetts so long as title passed); 
Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 375 Mass. 326, 
330 & n.4, 331 n.5 (1978) (relying in part on Emergency 
Regulation No. 3[3] to indicate that "control in the customer 
. . . sufficient to make out a 'possession'" was necessary to 
find taxable sale of tangible personal property). 
 
However, in 2005 the Legislature expanded the definition of 
tangible personal property to include "transfer[s] of 
standardized computer software, including but not limited to 
electronic, telephonic, or similar transfer."10  St. 2005, 
                     
 
10 The 2005 amendment provided in full that "[a] transfer of 
standardized computer software, including but not limited to 
electronic, telephonic, or similar transfer, shall also be 
considered a transfer of tangible personal property.  The 
12 
 
 
c. 163, § 34.  The 2005 amendment created uniform sales tax 
treatment for sales of standardized software that did not depend 
on the method of delivery.  See id. 
 
d.  Regulation pursuant to the 2005 amendment.  Subsequent 
to the 2005 amendment, the commissioner promulgated 830 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3, construing the 2005 amendment to allow 
sales tax on fees charged for the use of software on remote 
servers.  830 Code Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(3)(a).  See G. L. 
c. 14, § 6 (commissioner has authority to make "such reasonable 
regulations, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to 
interpret and enforce any statute imposing any tax, excise or 
fee").  Title 830 Code Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(3)(a) provides: 
"Sales in Massachusetts of computer hardware, computer 
equipment, and prewritten computer software, regardless of 
the method of delivery . . . are generally subject to the 
Massachusetts sales tax.  Taxable transfers of prewritten 
software include sales effected in any of the following 
ways regardless of the method of delivery, including 
electronic delivery or load and leave:  licenses and 
leases, transfers of rights to use software installed on a 
remote server, upgrades, and license upgrades.  The vendor 
collects sales tax from the purchaser and pays the sales 
tax to the Commissioner." 
 
See 830 Code Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(2) (defining "prewritten 
computer software" as "computer software, including prewritten 
upgrades, which is not designed and developed by the author or 
                     
commissioner may, by regulation, provide rules for apportioning 
tax in those instances in which software is transferred for use 
in more than one state."  St. 2005, c. 163, § 34 (effective 
April 1, 2006). 
13 
 
 
creator to the specifications of a specific purchaser").  The 
regulation further states that "[g]enerally, charges for the 
access or use of software on a remote server are subject to 
tax."  830 Code Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(14)(a).11 
 
e.  Application of the regulation to Citrix's subscription 
fees for its online products.  When a Citrix customer purchases 
a subscription for access to an online product, the customer 
gains access to a remote network of Citrix's servers running 
proprietary software, which is necessary for Citrix's products 
to function.  Therefore, it is apparent that Citrix's 
subscription fees involved "transfers of rights to use software 
installed on a remote server."  830 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 64H.1.3(3)(a).  See 830 Code Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(14)(a) 
("Generally, charges for the access or use of software on a 
remote server are subject to tax").  Moreover, the commissioner 
and the board construed the regulation to allow sales tax on 
Citrix's sales of subscriptions for its online products.  As the 
board and the commissioner were acting within their area of 
                     
 
11 The commissioner has interpreted 830 Code Mass. Regs. 
§ 64H.1.3 in various letter rulings.  See, e.g., Letter Ruling 
12-8 (July 16, 2012) (describing sales of access to software on 
remote servers as "virtual download[s] of [standardized] 
software," and reasoning that "customer acquires the same 
functionality as if the software was actually downloaded to the 
customer's [computer]," and therefore such sales are generally 
taxable).  See also Letter Ruling 12-10; Letter Ruling 12-5 (May 
7, 2012). 
14 
 
 
expertise, "we are generous in our deference" and "[ensure] only 
that their interpretation is reasonable."  Massachusetts Fine 
Wines & Spirits, LLC v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n, 482 
Mass. 683, 687 (2019), quoting Craft Beer Guild, LLC v. 
Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 481 Mass. 506, 525, 527 
(2019). 
 
In addition, the statute's legislative history supports the 
commissioner's and the board's reading of the regulation.  The 
2005 amendment sought to fix the disparities in tax treatment 
dependent on method of software delivery.  Therefore, the 
commissioner's and board's reading of the regulation and statute 
to include virtual delivery of software via remote access rights 
within the taxable realm is rational.  See AA Transp. Co., 454 
Mass. at 119. 
 
2.  Sale of tangible personal property.  Citrix argues in 
the alternative that even if we treat the subscription sales of 
remote access rights as transfers of tangible personal property, 
the "true object" of its offerings was the provision of a remote 
connection service, and therefore Citrix's subscription fees 
should be treated as nontaxable sales of service.  The 
commissioner counters that the regulation's two-part test for 
transactions involving sales of both tangible property and 
services precludes Citrix's argument that its products are 
nontaxable services.  We agree with the board that Citrix's 
15 
 
 
sales of subscriptions for the online products constituted sales 
of tangible personal property. 
 
The statute provides that taxable "sale[s] at retail" do 
not include "professional . . . or personal service transactions 
which involve no sale or which involve sales as inconsequential 
elements for which no separate charges are made."  G. L. c. 64H, 
§ 1.  The regulation articulates a conjunctive two-part test for 
when tax does not apply to charges for access or use of software 
on a remote server:  "[W]here there is [(1)] no charge for the 
use of the software and [(2)] the object of the transaction is 
acquiring a good or service other than the use of the software, 
sales or use tax does not apply" (emphasis added).  830 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(14)(a). 
 
For the second requirement, regarding the object of the 
transaction, the commissioner argues that the board was correct 
in finding that "the basic purpose of Citrix's customers in 
purchasing . . . the [o]nline [p]roducts is to acquire access to 
and use of the product(s)."12  Citrix counters that the board's 
factual findings regarding this requirement lack substantial 
                     
 
12 The commissioner argues that Citrix's offerings fail the 
first requirement because Citrix charges fees to use its 
software.  Citrix responds that "no charge" means "no separate 
charge," or no "separately itemized fee."  Because, as explained 
infra, we hold that the board was justified in determining that 
the second requirement was not met, we need not address the 
first requirement. 
16 
 
 
evidence.  We hold that substantial evidence supported the 
board's determination that the object of the transaction was 
acquiring access to and use of the online products. 
 
The substantial evidence "standard of review is highly 
deferential to the agency on questions of fact and reasonable 
inferences drawn therefrom."  Flint v. Commissioner of Pub. 
Welfare, 412 Mass. 416, 420 (1992).  We uphold an agency's 
finding of fact as long as it is supported "upon consideration 
of the entire record" and a "reasoning mind [could have made the 
finding] by reference to the logic of experience" (quotations 
omitted).  New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 
Mass. 456, 466 (1981).  See Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 
Assessors of Agawam, 428 Mass. 261, 265-266 (1998) ("reasonable 
basis in logic" sufficient to uphold agency finding).  Factual 
findings are set aside "if the evidence points to no felt or 
appreciable probability of the conclusion or points to an 
overwhelming probability of the contrary" (quotation omitted).  
New Boston Garden Corp., supra. 
 
In determining "the object of the transaction" with respect 
to Citrix's products, the board found that "the evidence 
established that the basic purpose of Citrix's customers in 
purchasing one or more of the [o]nline [p]roducts is to acquire 
access to and use of the product(s), each of which constitutes 
standardized computer software as contemplated by [G. L. 
17 
 
 
c.] 64H."13  The board reasoned that although Citrix's operations 
"include the many support functions necessary to develop, 
maintain, test, and troubleshoot the [o]nline [p]roducts as well 
as Citrix's network hardware," and these operations may "require 
substantial employee support, the evidence presented and common 
sense do not indicate that they are services sought by Citrix's 
customers."  The board analogized Citrix's offerings to a tax 
preparation example provided in the regulation.  See 830 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 64H.1.3(14)(a), Example 2.  In the example, a 
customer seeks to "acquire prewritten computer software to 
prepare her personal income tax return," which the example 
states is taxable regardless of whether the customer receives a 
disk containing the software or the right to access and use the 
software online.  Id. 
 
The board found that in the tax preparation example and in 
Citrix's sales of subscriptions to the online products, "it is 
the functionality of standardized software that customers seek 
                     
 
13 The commissioner addressed the object of the transaction 
standard in Letter Ruling 12-10, supra.  The commissioner stated 
that he "generally looks to the customer's experience in using 
the product rather than the 'behind-the-scenes' operations where 
the software is accessed on the seller's server."  Id.  The 
commissioner acknowledged that Citrix employed "hundreds of 
people worldwide to maintain software and hardware," but found 
that Citrix's products involved "little or no interaction" with 
Citrix employees.  Id.  Therefore, the commissioner stated that 
Citrix's subscription fees were best characterized as charges 
for remote access to software rather than as charges for 
services.  Id. 
18 
 
 
and that enables them to complete specific tasks."  The board 
also acknowledged that "Citrix's various written materials refer 
to the [o]nline [p]roducts as services," and it acknowledged the 
testimony of Citrix's vice-president of technology operations 
that he viewed Citrix's products as services.14  However, the 
board found that when the testimony and written materials were 
"considered in the broader context of all available facts," the 
evidence established that the basic purpose of the transaction 
was acquiring access to and use of the online products. 
 
Contrary to Citrix's contention, the board's findings do 
not lack substantial evidence.  When considering the entire 
record, a "reasoning mind" could find that Citrix's customers 
were paying for software rather than for unseen support 
operations.  See New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 466.  The 
record established that Citrix's products involved access to a 
network of servers hosting proprietary software and that this 
software is necessary for Citrix's online products to function.  
The testimony of the vice-president of technology operations, 
viewing the products as services, and the written materials, 
describing the offerings as services, do not establish an 
"overwhelming probability" that Citrix's users were paying for 
                     
 
14 In addition to the written materials describing the 
online products as services, Citrix's master subscription 
agreement also stated that it was granting its customers "access 
and use" to its software. 
19 
 
 
services rather than accessing Citrix software.15  See id.  
Therefore, we affirm the board's determination that Citrix's 
sales of subscriptions for the online products constituted sales 
of tangible personal property and as such were subject to 
Massachusetts sales tax. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
                     
 
15 In addition, we agree with the commissioner that the 
Citrix software's automated system cannot itself be 
characterized as a service because such a holding could "undo 
830 [Code. Mass. Regs.] § 64H.1.3(3)(a)'s classification of a 
granted right to access and use such software as a taxable sale 
in the first place."