OUR THOUGHTS ON:

Nexus Presumption and Burdensome Reporting Requirements

By

The state of Colorado recently enacted legislation that took effect on March 1, 2010 establishing a sales and use tax nexus presumption for out-of-state retailers that do not collect Colorado sales or use tax and are also part of corporate group that includes another retailer with a physical presence in the state. The presumption can be rebutted if the in-state retailer does not perform any solicitation on behalf of the out-of-state retailer. California introduced similar legislation in April, and many other states are expected to follow this trend.

However, more disconcerting than the nexus presumption is the burden that Colorado is placing on retailers and vendors that do not have nexus or a collection responsibility for Colorado sales and use tax. Colorado is now requiring out-of-state retailers and vendors to notify their Colorado customers that the state requires the purchaser to file a sales or use tax return. They are also required to send notification to all Colorado customers with specific information regarding the prior year’s purchases and reiterate that a sales and use tax return may be due to Colorado.   The retailers must also file a statement with the Colorado Department of Revenue containing the details of transactions with Colorado purchasers.

It appears as though the state of Colorado is purposefully trying to impose a greater administrative burden on retailers that do not collect Colorado tax than on retailers that do, perhaps a goal of getting more out-of-state retailers to register and collect the state’s sales or use tax. However, if the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in National Bellas Hess v. Illinois and Quill v. North Dakota prohibit states from imposing sales and use tax collection and filing responsibilities on out-of-state retailers without substantial nexus, it is unclear how Colorado would be able to impose the above filing requirements on the same retailers. Such an administrative burden could inhibit interstate commerce and possibly be unconstitutional. California has introduced similar legislation. How many more states will do the same?

Schneider Downs provides accounting, tax, wealth management and business advisory services through innovative thought leaders who deliver the expertise to meet the individual needs of each client. Our offices are located in Pittsburgh, PA, and Columbus, OH

This advice is not intended or written to be used for, and it cannot be used for, the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties that may be imposed, or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another person, any tax-related matter.

You’ve heard our thoughts… We’d like to hear yours

The Schneider Downs Our Thoughts On blog exists to create a dialogue on issues that are important to organizations and individuals. While we enjoy sharing our ideas and insights, we’re especially interested in what you may have to say. If you have a question or a comment about this article – or any article from the Our Thoughts On blog – we hope you’ll share it with us. After all, a dialogue is an exchange of ideas, and we’d like to hear from you. Email us at contactSD@schneiderdowns.com.

Material discussed is meant for informational purposes only, and it is not to be construed as investment, tax, or legal advice. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, this information should be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

© 2018 Schneider Downs. All rights-reserved. All content on this site is property of Schneider Downs unless otherwise noted and should not be used without written permission.

comments