Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Blog

Barnesandnoble.com Owes New Mexico $534,000 in Sales Taxes


A nationally known online bookseller must pay more than a half million dollars in taxes for books, music and movies bought by customers in New Mexico, the state Court of Appeals has ruled in a dispute over the state's power to tax corporate chains and Internet shopping.

The court's decision came Wednesday in a case involving an out-of-state online business, Barnes&nobles.com, LLC, which was part of the corporate family of bookseller Barnes & Noble Inc.

The online retailer was assessed gross receipts taxes in 2006 of $534,563 for sales from 1998 to 2005. The company protested and a state agency hearing officer agreed with the company that it wasn't required to collect and pay the tax because it had no presence in the state or what is known as a "substantial nexus" with New Mexico.
The online retailer was organized under Delaware laws and it had no employees or offices in the state. However, a separate Barnes and Noble company operates three bookstores in New Mexico, with the first of those started in Albuquerque in 1996 and the most recent in Las Cruces in 2003.

Traditionally, online retailers have been required to collect taxes on sales to customers in New Mexico if the company has a physical store, a warehouse or other facilities in the state.
The Department of Taxation and Revenue contended that activities at the in-state stores, including gift cards that could be redeemed online and a membership plan that offered online discounts, created the necessary connection to New Mexico to require the Internet retailer to collect and pay the state's tax. Books purchased online also could be returned for credit at the Barnes & Noble stores in New Mexico.

The Court of Appeals said those activities alone weren't enough to justify taxing the online sales, but it concluded the "in-state use of the Barnes & Noble's trademarks was sufficient to meet the constitutional standard" to permit the New Mexico tax.
Because the trademarks were licensed to the online retailer and the company with in-state stores, Barnes & Noble "was in effect telling customers to consider taxpayers (the online retailer) and booksellers to be one and the same," the court said.

"The goodwill developed both directly, by in-store activities promoting taxpayer's website, and indirectly, by consumers' increased awareness of Barnes & Noble due to the presence of in-state stores, helped to establish and maintain a market in New Mexico for taxpayer," the court said.
Attorneys for Barnes & Noble did not immediately return telephone and email messages on Thursday seeking comment on the court ruling and whether their client plans to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Text of the opinion is available at http://op.bna.com/dt.nsf/r?Open=vmar-8tjtkm.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Foreign accounts in Miami to be disclosed….

Tax rule would force banks to disclose identities of foreigners who make US deposits.

 
Over the objections of Florida lawmakers, the U.S. Treasury Department has issued a new rule that will force banks to disclose the identity of foreigners who deposit their money in America.
The regulation - which represents a major shift in policy - goes into effect next January and has alarmed the entire Florida congressional delegation, which is concerned the requirement will prompt foreigners to move their money to countries that require less disclosure.

"This is going to have a devastating impact on Florida and Florida banks," said U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who has filed legislation, along with U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., to block the rule.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Large Taxpayers still on IRS Radar Near-Term.

The Internal Revenue Service will continue to have a presence with the nation's largest taxpayers despite its plans for a gradual move away from a model where examination coverage is often determined by a taxpayer's size, IRS Large Business & International Commissioner Heather Maloy said April 18.

Her comments came while discussing the vision for a new audit process that eventually may shift some resources away from Coordinated Industry Case (CIC) taxpayers, first unveiled by IRS Deputy Commissioner for Service and Enforcement Steven Miller at the end of March.

“We will always have some type of presence among companies with the highest assets and the highest income. We are going to have to ensure the compliance of this population,” Maloy said on a webcast sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Washington, D.C.

In response to questions from Kevin Brown, a principal in PwC's tax controversy and dispute resolution practice, she said, “I don't think CIC taxpayers should expect in the near term that there won't be any type of IRS presence.”

Read more at: Tax Times blog

The Supreme Court Declined Review of Former Corporate Officer's Liability for Sec. 6672 Penalties – Excise Taxes.

The Supreme Court has declined to review a decision of the Fifth Circuit that the president/CEO of a defunct airline was a responsible person who willfully failed to remit excise taxes. The Fifth Circuit rejected the taxpayer's claims that he relied on counsel in paying other creditors before IRS and that a post-9/11 law extending the date of payment excused payment altogether.

Background. Under Code Sec. 6672(a), if an employer fails to properly pay over certain taxes, including transportation excise taxes, IRS can seek to collect a trust fund recovery penalty equal to 100% of the unpaid taxes from a "responsible person," i.e., a person who: (1) is responsible for collecting, accounting for, and paying over payroll taxes; and (2) willfully fails to perform this responsibility. In determining whether there is "willfulness" for purposes of Code Sec. 6672(a), the courts have focused on whether a taxpayer had knowledge about the non-payment of the payroll taxes, or showed reckless disregard with respect to whether the payments were being made.

Facts. Michael Conway founded and operated National Airlines, Inc. (National), and was National's chief executive officer (CEO), president, and chairman of its board of directors during the tax periods at issue (quarters ending Sept. 30, 2000; Sept. 30, 2001; and Dec. 31, 2001). National began flying passengers in '99, but was under bankruptcy protection by December of 2000 and ceased operations at the end of 2001. When National stopped doing business, it had reported but failed to pay transportation excise taxes for the tax periods at issue of $1,832,501.01, $3,497,448.32, and $4,803,626.85, respectively.

Evidence showed that Conway knew of the unpaid excise taxes for the third quarter of 2000, at the latest, when National declared bankruptcy. Further, he knew of the unpaid taxes from 2001, at the latest, on Sept. 22, 2001, when Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (the Act) giving airlines a deferral of time within which to pay their excise taxes.

Conway was an authorized check signer on each of National's checking accounts, ran National's day-to-day operations, continued to receive his salary (the highest in the company) after knowing of the unpaid taxes, and personally paid, authorized, or acquiesced in the payment of millions of dollars to non-IRS creditors. Evidence further showed that he had the authority to determine which bills were paid. Conway admitted that the excise taxes collected by National weren't segregated into separate bank accounts.

In National's bankruptcy, IRS filed an administrative claim for over $11 million, most of which reflected the unpaid excise taxes from 2001. National never objected to the claim. The Chapter 7 trustee allowed IRS's claim in its entirety.

On or around Mar. 14, 2003, IRS notified Conway of its intent to assess trust fund recovery penalties against him, which he timely appealed on May 9. IRS rejected his appeal and made its assessments against Conway under Code Sec. 6672 on Mar. 28, 2006.

Conway argued that the Act converted the unpaid excise taxes from trust funds to short-term loans, effectively making the government a partner with the airlines, and that he didn't pay the excise taxes based on counsel's advice. He also argued that he wasn't a responsible person, and that he didn't act willfully.

District Court sides with IRS. The district court found that the facts clearly showed that Conway was liable as a matter of law-he was the chief individual responsible for the overall business of National, he was its CEO and president, he was an authorized check signer, and he could hire and fire employees-and rejected his argument that he relied on counsel as "conclusory and disingenuous." It further found that he acted willfully, as shown by evidence that he authorized payments to creditors other than IRS after learning of the unpaid taxes, and rejected his argument that National's bankruptcy created an encumbrance on the available funds that prevented him from making payments to IRS.

The court also considered, and ultimately rejected, his argument that the Act excused payment of the excise taxes, finding that there was no indication that Congress intended to do anything more than defer their payment. The Act and accompanying IRS guidance unambiguously provided for an extension of time to pay, and not forgiveness of, the excise taxes.

Appellate Court decision. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Conway was a responsible person (both before and during National's bankruptcy) who willfully failed to pay taxes.

Conway argued that he had reasonable cause for his failure to pay taxes, based on (i) reliance on the advice of counsel, (ii) the Act, (iii) the lack of unencumbered funds to pay the taxes, and (iv) his belief that National had fully paid the excise taxes. However, the Fifth Circuit easily rejected his arguments. The only advice of counsel in the record was the CFO's advice that National close its current bank accounts and open new ones as a debtor in possession, which fell far short of establishing reasonable cause. The Act didn't, as Conway argued, authorize National to use the withheld taxes as working capital. Further, he failed to show that the funds paid to non-IRS creditors had legal priority over the unpaid excise taxes, and any good faith belief by Conway that the taxes would be paid was insufficient to defeat willfulness.

No further review. On Apr. 16, 2012, the Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the Fifth Circuit in Conway.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help