Sales Tax Case on Phone Books Reminder to Taxpayers Shipping Art
Tax Appeals Tribunal columnist Joseph Lipari writes that a recent decision that deals with the sales tax of "yellow pages" phone books, an industry with few participants, may seem irrelevant. But the particular issue in the case, whether certain commercial delivery services qualified as "common carriers," is of high importance to sellers and buyers of art. The narrow definition of the term advanced by the Tax Department and accepted by the ALJ is likely to dictate how art shipments will be arranged for the foreseeable future.
September 07, 2017 at 02:03 PM
17 minute read
For a tax professional, one of the most tedious requirements of the job is sifting through (on paper or online) opinions issued each week by the various courts and trying to determine which decisions are relevant to issues faced by our clients. On first glance, the recent case, In re SuperMedia, DTA No. 826264 (N.Y. Div. Tax App., May 25, 2017), appeared to be one that could be skipped since it deals with the sales tax of “yellow pages” phone books, an industry with few participants. However, the particular issue in the case, whether certain commercial delivery services qualified as “common carriers,” is of high importance to sellers and buyers of art. The narrow definition of the term advanced by the Tax Department and accepted by the administrative law judge (ALJ), is likely to dictate how art shipments will be arranged for the foreseeable future.
Publishers of yellow pages phone books such as SuperMedia make money by selling advertisements in the phone books, since the books are delivered free to consumers. SuperMedia printed the phone books out of state, and arranged for them to be delivered to consumers in New York via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) or one of three non-governmental carriers: FedEx, PDC, or DDA.
New York generally imposes use tax on personal property used in New York for which sales tax was not previously paid. N.Y. TAX LAW §1110(a).1 “Use” is defined to “include the distribution of … promotional materials.” N.Y. TAX LAW §1101(b)(7). However, an exception provides that “printed [promotional] materials … shall be exempt from [sales and use tax] where the purchaser of such promotional materials mails or ships such promotional materials … to its customers … , without charge to such customers … , by means of a common carrier, United States postal service or like delivery service.” N.Y. TAX LAW §1115(n)(4) (emphasis added).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTreasury Issues New Regulations on Allocation of Partnership Liabilities
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250