Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept. of Revenue

10 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Supreme Court of Ohio Hears Oral Argument in Crucial Case for Factor-Presence Nexus

    Reed Smith LLPPaul MelniczakMay 5, 2016

    See, e.g., Newegg, Inc. v. Testa, BTA decision, Case No. 2012-234 (February 26, 2015). 430 U.S. 274 (1977). 483 U.S. 232 (1987).See Appellee Tax Commissioner’s Merit Brief, Crutchfield, Corp. v. Testa, No. 2015-368 (Ohio October.

  2. Massachusetts Issues Proposed Regulation Imposing Sales or Use Tax Obligations on “Internet Vendors” Beginning October 1

    Reed Smith LLPMichael JacobsAugust 23, 2017

    Rather, the Department asserts the proposed regulation falls within the scope of Quill, arguing that internet vendors are physically present in Massachusetts because they typically: Own or use software and “cookies” located on customer computers in Massachusetts; Have contracts or relationships with content distribution networks that use in-state servers or otherwise provide services in Massachusetts; and/or Make sales through marketplace facilitators or sales involving delivery companies that provide payment processing or fulfillment services. When these contacts are considered, it appears that the Department’s nexus theory derives, at least in part, from the United States Supreme Court decision in Tyler Pipe Industries v. Washington Department of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987). Under Tyler Pipe, an out-of-state taxpayer can have nexus in a state if it hires a third party to engage in activities in the state that “establish or maintain a market” for the taxpayer’s sales in the state.

  3. Massachusetts Issues Proposed Regulation Imposing Sales or Use Tax Obligations on ‘Internet Vendors’ Beginning October 1

    Reed Smith LLPAugust 3, 2017

    Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). 483 U.S. 232 (1987). Id. at 250.

  4. The DOJ's Executively Under-Privileged Claim in the 9th Circuit

    PlanetGreen.orgKatrianna BrisackFebruary 9, 2017

    South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc., 303 U.S. 177, 185 (1938)." 504 U.S. 298 (1992), see also Tyler Pipe Industries v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 438 U.S. 232 (1987), Nat'l Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967), Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948). In this case, Washington contends that it sues on its own behalf and to protect its own interests; however, it is still unlawfully arrogating the functions of the United States government under Brimmer v. Rebman, where it was held that "a burden imposed by a State upon interstate commerce is not to be sustained simply because the statute imposing it applies alike to all the people of the States, including the people of the State enacting such statute."

  5. Merit Decision Guest Post: Court Upholds Application of Ohio’s Commercial Activity Tax. Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanDecember 6, 2016

    Quill required the business to have a physical presence in the taxing state.)Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington States Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987) (recognized that physical presence satisfies the substantial nexus requirement for a privilege tax similar to CAT.)Case AnalysisOhio’s CAT is roughly equivalent to a business income tax on a gross (as opposed to a net) basis. More precisely, the CAT taxes gross sales receipts without deductions for the costs of earning the income.

  6. Ohio Supreme Court Finds Quill Does Not Apply to the Commercial Activity Tax

    Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMichael J. CataldoNovember 23, 2016

    Slip Opinion, p. 17. 483 U.S. 232 (1987) Slip Opinion, p. 21. Slip Opinion, p. 34.

  7. Supreme Court of Ohio Sustains Factor-Presence Nexus for Some, But Opens Door for Apportionment of CAT Receipts for All

    Reed Smith LLPMichael JacobsNovember 18, 2016

    Quill, 504 U.S. at 314.Quill, 504 U.S. at 317.Id. 483 U.S. 232 (1987).Id. at 250.Crutchfield, at ¶50.Id. ¶52. 397 U.S. 137 (1970).Id. at 145–46 (emphasis added).Id. ¶61.Id. ¶67.Id. ¶68.Id. ¶73.Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 (1977).

  8. Bueller? Bueller? MTC Still Calling on States to Join ALAS Program

    Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLPTodd LardDecember 15, 2015

    The Model Sales Tax Nexus Statute articulates several ways in which a remote seller is deemed “engaged in business” in a state in which it is not physically present. The statute extends the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Tyler Pipe v. Washington, 483 U.S. 232 (1987), and Script v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960)—which held that activities by in-state representatives can attribute nexus to the out-of-state party—to activities conducted through the Internet. With states continuing to express dissatisfaction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s current sales tax jurisprudence, states are looking for new ways to chip away at the physical presence requirement upheld in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

  9. California’s Harley-Davidson Decision Rides over Nexus Lines

    McDermott Will & EmeryAlysse McLoughlinJuly 15, 2015

    The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed this substantial nexus requirement, holding that a seller must have a physical presence in the taxing state to satisfy the substantial nexus requirement for sales-and-use tax purposes. In Tyler Pipe Industries v. Washington State Department of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987), the Supreme Court stated that, “the crucial factor governing [Commerce Clause] nexus is whether the activities performed in this state on behalf of the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer’s ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales.” While Harley-Davidson argued that the activities of the in-state agent could not create nexus for the SPEs, as such activities were not sales-related activities, the California court rejected this argument stating that “this argument fails from the outset, however, because the third-party’s in state conduct need not be sales-related; it need only be an integral and crucial aspect of the businesses” (internal citations omitted).

  10. California Quarterly Update -- A Reed Smith Quarterly Update (2nd Quarter 2013)

    Reed Smith LLPJuly 30, 2013

    Although the FTB repeatedly argued that the taxpayer was not in the business of selling entire lines of business and that its Form 10-K did not state that taxpayer was in that business, the taxpayer clarified that it has a written and public statement in all of its 10-Ks regarding its strategy and that it acquires underdeveloped media properties, grows their values to increase cash flows, and disposes of them when appropriate as a part of that strategy. 5. Docket No. CASD-37-2011-00100846-CU-MC-CTL. 6. Citing Tyler Pipe Indus. Inc. v. Wash. State Dep’t of Rev., 483 U.S. 232 (1987). 7. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 25101.15. 8. LASC Case No. BC457301.