Posted on

“No taxation without representation”

In the mid-1700s, British colonists in the 13 Colonies, which eventually became the original United States of America, began to summarize their primary grievance against British rule with the slogan, "No taxation without representation." Although certainly not the only cause, many historians agree this was one of the primary grievances that led to the American Revolution. Well this year – 2013 – marks a Centennial which I suspect not a single citizen of the United States will hail as worthy of celebration. This is the 100th anniversary of the tax law.

Tax laws in the United States did exist before 1913. In fact, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 during the Civil War to help pay for the expense of war, but this tax was repealed 10 years later. Then in 1894, Congress enacted a "flat rate" income tax, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law unconstitutional the very next year since it constituted a direct tax that was not allocated on a pro rata basis by each state’s population.

The modern day income tax on individuals arises from the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was passed by Congress in 1909, and that legislated the state apportionment requirement out of existence, giving Congress the authority to enact what has become the individual income tax we all know and love today. Since any amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification by at least three-fourths of the states, the Congressional legislation did not actually become the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution until February 1913, when it was ratified by the state of Wyoming.

Until World War II, income tax applied to less than 10 percent of the U.S. population, and since the tax brackets were graduated, tax historian Joseph Thorndike has noted that in 1935, when the threshold for reaching the top tax bracket was income of $5 million, the top bracket applied to only one person in the United States – John D. Rockefeller, Jr. One last bit of IRS trivia – the filing date for income tax in the United States used to be March 15, but the date was pushed to April 15 when Congress overhauled the income tax statutes in 1954.

I’m sure every U.S. citizen now believes that one of the results of the American Revolution remains that each of us feel absolutely represented by our federal government and therefore we don’t mind paying taxes. Right? Just in case you did want to have your own personal celebration of the 100th anniversary, please feel free to print your own copy of the original 1913 IRS Form 1040 and do with it what you wish. I might just fill it out and send it in today!

Going Broker

Don’t you think we might have thought of a better name for someone who invests your money than a ‘broker’? (04-12-2013)

Henry Ford (1863 – 1947)

“If you think you can or you think you can’t you are correct.”

Henry Ford (1863 – 1947), American industrialist, founder of the Ford Motor Company and development sponsor of the assembly line mass production.

Posted on

New York E-Retail Ruling May Tax the Supreme Court

This post was written by Kelley C. Miller and Daniel M. Dixon.

On March 21, we posted Clouds Continue To Rain State Tax On Retailers, the most recent in a series of blog posts related to the U.S. state tax implications of cloud computing, e-Commerce and retailing. To keep the thread going, this past Thursday (March 28), the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court thus far to consider the issue, issued a much-anticipated ruling in Overstock.com v. New York Department of Taxation and Finance (combining two similar cases brought by e-retailers Overstock.com and Amazon.com. At issue is the New York statute that requires the collection of sales or use tax from an e-retailer (a remote vendor) with no physical presence in the state, if, as part of its business model, it pays in-state residents to assist in business solicitation; and the question being litigated is whether that statute violates the Due Process Clause or Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Trial Court—and now the Court of Appeals—have upheld the law.

Significant to the Court of Appeals’ decision is its deference to the bright-line requirement of physical presence necessary for a state to require sales or use tax collection. This standard was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Quill v. North Dakota (504 U.S. 298; 1992). Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Quill is still applicable even though the “world has changed dramatically in the last two decades,” it nonetheless noted that changing the physical-presence requirement in light of the way e-retailers now conduct their business, “would be something for the United States Supreme Court to consider.” A key issue in the case was whether the in-state residents hired or engaged by Overstock and Amazon, and who were involved in soliciting business – they are often referred to as “affiliates” – were actively soliciting customers in the state or whether their actions were more akin to that of an advertiser seeking to influence buying patterns – conduct that might be seen as more passive and, accordingly, would not meet Quill’s physical presence standard.

Despite hopes that the Court of Appeals might address this issue in its decision, the majority deferred discussion of this important distinction in lieu of a more focused analysis of whether the New York statute was unconstitutional on its face. The court held that a discussion of the affiliates’ activities was not warranted as neither Overstock.com nor Amazon.com could prove there were no circumstances under which the statute could be constitutionally applied: “The bottom line is that if a vendor is paying New York residents to actively solicit business in this state, there is no reason why that vendor should not shoulder the appropriate tax burden.”

The dissenting opinion, however, does address the possibility that there could be significant distinctions between those who act as sales agents for a company and those who place advertisements for a company on websites. The dissent noted that mere advertising by a remote seller, through use of an in-state affiliate that might place advertisements on websites, does not meet the Quill test for physical presence. Placing links on websites from within the state to e retailers are advertisements and not solicitations.

Reacting to the decision, Overstock.com indicated that it may ask the United States Supreme Court to review the issue. In a press release issued yesterday by Overstock.com, Acting Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Johnson noted, “Given that courts in other states have upheld U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and struck down similar laws, the matter appears ripe for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.” To ask the Supreme Court to review the ruling in the case, a petition for writ of certiorari would be due on or before June 26.

The Rimon State Tax Team will be closely following developments in this case, including not only the possibility of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but also the status of The Main Street Fairness Act of 2013 – U.S. federal legislation currently pending in the House of Representatives (and recently given symbolic approval in the Senate) that would allow states to impose sales and use tax requirements on e-retailers (presumably engaged in inter-state commerce) even if the e-retailer does not have a physical presence in a state.

For more information regarding these developments and to stay on top of the legal wrangling in state taxation related to e-Commerce, contact Kelley C. Miller or Daniel M. Dixon directly. Of course, you can always find out more about our Cloud Computing initiative or get the assistance you need by contacting me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.”

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist most noted for his scientific theory that all species of life descended from common ancestors. In his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, he presented compelling evidence that this evolution resulted from natural selection.

Posted on

Clouds Continue To Rain State Tax On Retailers

As you may remember, this past January, Rimon presented a teleseminar entitled: State Tax Update: States Can Be Taxing in a Digital World, led by Dan Dixon and Kelley Miller, who are leading the charge in keeping clients informed as the worlds of cloud computing and state tax converge – or perhaps we should say “collide.”

Increasingly, states are scrutinizing the operations of cloud providers and their cloud-related business activities as they seek ways to force online retailers to collect sales tax from customers. Dan and Kelley have become recognized leaders in this area, closely monitoring all 50 state tax departments within the United States, and the dynamically evolving landscape. Dan and Kelley continue to assist clients, speak and write about new state tax developments, and have been quoted in a variety of media sources, including BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, NPR, NetworkWorld, E-Commerce Times and The Hartford Courant.

Dan and Kelley have prepared a recent Rimon Client Alert, entitled “The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, BusinessWeek and Fortune 500 Companies All Agree: No One Knows Taxing the Cloud Like Rimon State Tax!” You can read the full alert online “Cloud Computing is Taxing (Web)”, or you can download a PDF version “Cloud Computing is Taxing (PDF).”  As you may also recall, in 2010 Rimon launched a cloud computing initiative, commissioning a series of individual white papers, now compiled into a comprehensive work entitled, “Transcending the Cloud: A Legal Guide to the Risks and Rewards of Cloud Computing.”

For more information regarding this alert or to stay on top of the developments in state taxation related to cloud services, products, and platforms, from Rimon lawyers who really know this area, contact Dan Dixon or Kelley C. Miller directly. Of course, you can always find out more about our Cloud Computing initiative or get the assistance you need by contacting me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Trending Towards Service of Process via Facebook!

This post was also written by Lisa Kim.

Just a few weeks ago Legal Bytes updated its reporting (which has been going on since 2009) noting that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA (S. D.N.Y June 7, 2012) declined to permit a plaintiff to effect service of process on a defendant via Facebook (see, Service of Process by Facebook? Not Just Yet!). However, it seems that legislators and courts alike are opening up to the idea of allowing service through social media where it would be reasonably likely for the defendant to receive actual notice. In the fast-paced world of digital technology and social media, the courts are indeed moving just a wee bit faster (do they have a choice?).

Last month, Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, introduced a Texas bill (H.B. 1989) that would allow courts to approve the use of substituted service of process through a social media website. Specifically, this law would allow the court to prescribe substituted service through a social media website if: “(1) the defendant maintains a social media page on that website; (2) the profile on the social media page is the profile of the defendant; (3) the defendant regularly accesses the social media page account; and (4) the defendant could reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the electronic communication were sent to the defendant’s account.”

Similarly, last week, in FTC v. PCCare247 Inc., S.D.N.Y, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) permission to effect service of process (although not the summons and complaint) via Facebook and email upon five defendants based in India.

In the PCCare247 case, the FTC alleged that the defendants operated a scheme, largely out of call centers located in India, that tricked American consumers into spending money to fix non-existent problems with their computers. FTC served the defendants through the Indian Central Authority as required by the Hague Convention and also sent the summons and complaint to the defendants via email, Federal Express, and personal service via a process server. Although the Indian Central Authority (after more than five months) still had not responded to the FTC confirming that defendants had been served, the defendants received notice through the process server.

The request for service of process via Facebook and email came into play later when the FTC requested permission to serve additional documents on the defendants. The court granted the motion, holding that service via email and Facebook are not prohibited by the Convention or any other known international agreement. In addition, the court held that service via email and Facebook comports with due process as the FTC demonstrated the likelihood service via email and/or Facebook would reach the defendants. The court cited the fact that email addresses for service were used for various tasks in the alleged scheme to defraud consumers and defendants had used some of the emails to email the court.

The common thread between the Texas Bill and PCCare247 appears to be the high likelihood that service through these electronic means would give actual notice to the defendant. Indeed, in distinguishing Fortunato, the PCCare247 court specifically noted the FTC provided the court with “ample reason for confidence that the Facebook accounts identified are actually operated by defendants.” The Facebook accounts had been registered with email addresses known to be the email addresses of the defendants; the defendants listed their job titles at the defendant company as professional activities on their Facebook accounts and two of the defendants were shown to be “friends” with a third defendant.

The evolution of judicial precedent and thinking in this area will not only be interesting to watch but may also transform the manner in which the law, the courts and judicial systems around the globe confront and attempt to deal with legal professional and ethical issues (see generally, Friends on Facebook – Hold Them Close, Get Held in Contempt of Court!) Social media and technology, wired and wireless, continues to challenge every industry and profession and neither the law nor the legal profession are immune. Don’t hesitate to contact Keri Bruce, Lisa Kim if you want to know more about these issues, and, of course, you are always free to contact me, Joseph I. Rosenbaum, or any of the attorneys at Rimon with whom you regularly work. We would be happy to help.

Twinkle, Twinkle, E, F, G

Why does the “A B C . . .” song that we use to teach kids the English alphabet, have the same tune as “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”? (03-14-2014)

Posted on

Mississippi Ratifies the 13th Amendment – Thanks ‘Lincoln’

To be honest, I wasn’t sure whether to post this directly on the Legal Bytes blog as a news item or list it under Useless But Compelling Facts. But the news won out.

So now it is official and perhaps an illustration of how life can imitate art – in this case the motion picture “Lincoln”, directed by Steven Spielberg. You can now add to the list of things for which the film, a brilliant characterization of Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to formally abolish involuntary servitude for all time, can take credit: the correction of an oversight for 18 years and perhaps the confirmation of an act that was 130 years in the making in the state of Mississippi.

As our story begins, Dr. Ranjan Batra, an associate professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, decided to do some fact-checking after viewing the movie. Curiously, it seems, he discovered that Mississippi had not legally effected the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States – the Amendment that abolished slavery in the United States.

Now in case you are wondering how this could be, a little legal procedural history is in order. In December 1865, three-fourths of the U.S. states ratified the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution – a number sufficient to make the Amendment officially part of the Constitution. At the time, a number of states did oppose the Amendment – Mississippi among them. In the ensuing years after the Civil War ended, all of the remaining states eventually did vote to ratify the Amendment. Indeed, the Mississippi legislature voted to ratify the Amendment in 1995! But in order to make it official, the state was required to notify the U.S. Archivist of the passage of the resolution – and through some oversight, Mississippi never did so.

Well, Dr. Batra spoke to a colleague, Ken Sullivan, who in turn contacted Delbert Hosemann, the Mississippi Secretary of State. Secretary of State Hosemann, recognizing the oversight, sent a copy of the 1995 Mississippi resolution to the Office of the Federal Register January 30, 2013. According to published reports, on February 7, 2013, just more than a month ago, the Federal Register wrote to the state of Mississippi confirming that “with this action, the State of Mississippi has ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

Now isn’t that better than an Academy Award?