About This Blog
Sales tax is one of the most interesting, and challenging, taxes. It’s interesting because it involves clients in every possible industry. Every active business has potential sales tax exposure, no exceptions! And unfortunately sales tax compliance is particularly difficult for two, specific reasons. First, the tax is perhaps the most fact-dependent – seemingly inconsequential changes in the underlying facts can transform a nontaxable sale into a taxable one. Second, these rules are constantly changing. It’s tough enough to keep up with these changes in just one state. But many vendors, especially those selling over the internet, have to keep abreast of these changes in multiple states. So it’s easy to fall behind on sales tax compliance.
With this blog, we hope to keep you up to date on impactful changes in the sales tax compliance, especially in New York State. We’ll review legislative and administrative changes in the sales tax; we’ll discuss new sales tax case law; and we’ll highlight the enforcement initiatives and tactics we’re seeing while defending businesses in sales tax audits. We hope you find this content as interesting as we do. Please contact us with any questions.
Stay Connected
Topics
Sales Tax Cases from the TiNY Blog for March 26, 2024
Here are the sales tax cases from the TiNY Blog for the week of March 26, 2024.
Decision
Matter of Babu Wine and Liquor, Inc. (Tax Appeals Tribunal, March 14, 2024); Div’s Rep. Brian Evans, Esq.; Petitioner’s Rep. Kuldip Madan; Articles 28 and 29/An atypical timey (Zoe Peppas).
This timey went all the way up to the Tribunal.
The Division issued a Notice of Determination for sales and use taxes due from Petitioner on January 27, 2020. That started the 90-day period for filing a timely protest by requesting a conciliation conference or filing a petition with the Division of Tax Appeals. Petition was received by the Division on December 3, 2020, more than seven months late. The Tribunal found the Judge properly dismissed the petition.
However, Petitioner claimed its petition was filed within 90 days of a Conciliation Order dated October 30, 2020. But that Conciliation Order was addressed to a responsible officer of Petitioner who, apparently, challenged their personal liability separate from Petitioner. There was no conciliation order addressed to Petitioner itself. Therefore, the time to file Petitioner’s petition ran from the issue date of the Notice in January rather than the issue date of the Order issued to the responsible officer in October. So, Petitioner’s December petition was late.
Petitioner also protested a second Notice of Determination, but this second protest did not include a copy of the statutory notice. The Tribunal allowed Petitioner the ability to correct its mistake within 30 days and remanded the matter to the Administrative Law Judge.
Comment
Post a comment:
Attorney Advertising
Hodgson Russ LLP
