SALT Blog - SALT Blawg

On August 3, 2022, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld a panel decision finding that a senior living facility failed to qualify as a “purely public charity” and therefore was not entitled to exemption from sales tax. See Friends Boarding Home of W. Quarterly Meeting v. Commonwealth, No. 332 F.R. 2018 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Aug. 3, 2022) (op. not reported).  In order to satisfy the requirements for a “purely public charity,” an institution must satisfy the five-part HUP test, which requires that an institution:

• Advance a charitable purpose;
• Donate or renders gratuitously a ...

State DOR Letters and Administrative Rulings

Illinois Office of Administrative Hearings respects the entity, and rules Department of Revenue cannot go after owner of corporation for use tax liability on vessel use in Illinois. Use tax is not a trust tax. It also rules that the foreign corporate owner of a vessel used in Illinois for 30 days/year has sufficient nexus to allow Illinois to impose use tax on value of vessel. Taxpayer allowed credit for tax paid outside the state. Correct tax base for assessment of use tax is the purchase price reduced by depreciation prior to first use in ...

State DOR Letters and Administrative Rulings

The Tennessee Department of Revenue rules that software configuration services are not subject to sales tax. The industrial equipment exemption does not apply as to sales tax in connection with the sale of compressed air with compressors on site. The assembly of leased equipment is subject to sales tax as services necessary to complete a sale.

In a shift, the Indiana Department of Revenue issues a statement that it will no longer impose sales tax on digital goods unless specific circumstances exist, citing the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax ...

State DOR Letters and Administrative Rulings

The Indiana Department of Revenue provided guidance on what constitutes tangible personal property. That guidance includes the specific view that electricity is tangible personal property. It also discusses the taxation of intangibles in the state. It also ruled that medical devices are not exempt if there is not a prescription. So a sale of a medical device to a doctor or a hospital is not exempt as a device being prescribed. It may qualify for the sale for resale exemption, as the doctor resells the device to a patient, but the requirements ...

State DOR Letters and Administrative Rulings

The Wisconsin Appeals Commission ruled services are not presumed to be subject to sales tax. In looking to whether barge fleeting services are “taxable services,” the plain language of the statutes does not impose the sales tax and thus the state cannot interpret into the taxation of services those services that are not clearly included. Same rule follows inTexas.

Illinoispublished a ruling on the applicability of the manufacturing exemption in connection with a meat processing facility, and what parts of the plant equipment would ...

Texas Supreme Court Rules “Pole Tax” Does Not Violate First Amendment

In a unanimous decision Texas Supreme Court rules stripper "pole tax" does not violate First Amendment. The decision reverses a 2-1 Third Court of Appeals decision, which had held the tax violated the First Amendment in upholding the trial court’s ruling. The decision remands the case to the trial court, where three arguments remain, all based on challenges to the tax under the Texas Constitution.

New Jersey Appeals Court Upholds Tax Court Finding No Unitary Nature of Limited Partnership

New Jersey ...

On December 15, 2010, the Texas Third Court of Appeals heard oral argument on an appeal by Roark Amusement & Vending, L.P. in response to a lower court's decision upholding the Texas Comptroller's action imposing sales and use tax on the purchase by Roark for toys placed in a claw machine. Roark argued the sales and use tax sale-for-resale exemption applied as the toys in the claw machine were used in the performance of a taxable service. It argued that coin-operated amusement services should be subject "to the integral transfer sales and use tax exemption found in the 'sale for resale' tax exemption statute." Roark alternatively argued that 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.301(b) is invalid to the extent it excludes Roark's transaction from the sale-for-resale exemption, as the Comptroller improperly limited the Legislature's exemption.