Sales and use taxes are "trust fund taxes," or taxes that the collector holds "in trust" for the state until remittance. These taxes are imposed not on the seller but on the purchaser or user. As such, the laws passed in the wake of Wayfair do not increase tax liability for sellers but allow states to shift the collection and remittance obligation from the customer to the seller.
Sales-and-use-tax obligations, however, do not necessarily stop at the entity level, so even conducting business as a corporation does not necessarily protect owners from liability. This realization can come as a shock to those who find themselves saddled with the liability, particularly business owners who formed corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs) specifically to shield themselves from personal liability for business debts. It is a rude awakening when they become ensnared by responsible person rules.
All states with sales and use taxes have rules that impose responsibility for tax liabilities on certain parties when their associated businesses cannot satisfy their obligations. Many of the rules expressly allow the respective state to file a demand for payment against any responsible person if the business files for bankruptcy — although bankruptcy is not a prerequisite for personal liability.
Depending on the state's statutory rules, responsible parties might include owners, officers, directors, controllers, tax managers, or other employees with tax filing responsibilities, and nonemployee tax return preparers. In New York, for example, the responsible person statute applies to:
any officer, director or employee of a corporation or of a dissolved corporation, any employee of a partnership, any employee or manager of a limited liability company, or any employee of an individual proprietorship who as such officer, director, employee or manager is under a duty to act for such corporation, partnership, limited liability company or individual proprietorship in complying with any requirement of [the sales and use taxes]; and any member of a partnership or limited liability company. [N.Y. Tax Law §1131]
These individuals are personally liable in New York for sales and use taxes imposed, collected, or required to be collected (N.Y. Tax Law §1133). (Limited partners and LLC members with a less-than-50% interest in the partnership or LLC can apply for partial relief from this provision.)
In Georgia, responsible persons can be held liable for amounts willfully "evaded, not collected, not accounted for, or not paid over" (Ga. Code §48-2-52). North Carolina imposes personal liability on responsible persons for sales and use taxes that the business did not collect if the person knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known the tax was not being collected (N.C. Gen. Stat. §105-242.2(b)(2)). In other words, responsible persons in these and other states with those rules could end up on the hook for taxes the business did not actually collect.
In Texas, on the other hand, collection seems to be a prerequisite to responsible person liability:
[A]n individual who controls or supervises the collection of tax or money from another person, or an individual who controls or supervises the accounting for and paying over of the tax or money, and who willfully fails to pay or cause to be paid the tax or money is liable as a responsible individual for an amount equal to the tax or money not paid or caused to be paid. [Tex. Tax Code §111.016(b)]
In the case of a closely held corporation that has been suspended from doing business in the state, California similarly allows a responsible person who fails to pay or to cause to be paid any taxes to be held personally liable for any unpaid sales or use tax liability incurred during the suspension only if the taxes were collected (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18, §1702.6).
Job title alone generally is not enough to impose liability in any state; in effect, the substance-over-form doctrine applies. Tax authorities consider whether an individual has the requisite authority or control over the business's affairs, including decisions about disbursements. For example, relevant factors when determining whether a specific individual is a responsible person for purposes of New York law include whether he or she (N.Y. Dep't of Tax and Fin., Publication 131, "Your Rights and Obligations Under the Tax Law" (May 2018)):
Is actively involved in operating the business on a regular basis;
Is involved in deciding which financial obligations are paid;
Is involved in personnel activity (such as hiring or firing employees);
Has check signing authority;
Prepares tax returns;
Has authority over business decisions;
Is a tax manager or general manager; and/or
Is a corporate officer.
Under certain circumstances, an individual could be held liable even if not under a duty to act for the business. For example, in New York, an individual could be held liable if he or she is a member of a partnership or LLC, regardless of whether the individual has a duty to act on behalf of the partnership or LLC (N.Y. Publication 131), or, in Maryland, if the individual is a president, vice president, or treasurer of a corporation, regardless of whether he or she oversees or manages financial or tax matters (Md. Code, Tax—Gen. §11-601(d)).
In some states, even those charged with collecting or filing taxes or comparable financial discretion can be held liable only if they "willfully fail" to perform as required. Wisconsin law, for example, states that:
Any person who is required to collect, account for or pay the amount of tax imposed under this subchapter and who willfully fails to collect, account for or pay to the department shall be personally liable for such amounts, including interest and penalties thereon, if that person's principal is unable to pay such amounts to the [state department of revenue]. [Wis. Stat. §77.60(9)]
Notably, where such willful failure is found, the responsible person could suffer especially steep penalties. In Florida, he or she could be liable for a penalty equal to twice the total amount of the tax willfully evaded, not accounted for, or remitted (in addition to other penalties) (Fla. Stat. §213.29). Every state assesses some level of penalties and interest.
A responsible person usually can contest liability in an administrative process, typically by showing lack of knowledge of the tax liability, authority to make the corporation pay the tax, or available corporate funds to make timely payment of the tax. These objections usually are an uphill battle, though, as states are determined to collect the tax.
The consequences of being found a responsible person can prove tougher than might be expected. In many states, tax authorities can pursue a responsible person for the full amount of the liability a business owes, even if other persons or entities also qualify as responsible persons (see, e.g., N.Y. Publication 131).
In Florida, a responsible person has to worry about more than the previously noted double civil tax penalty for willful failure to collect a tax. Failing, neglecting, or refusing to collect taxes constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor (Fla. Stat. §212.07(3)(a)). A willful failure to collect a tax less than $300 is a second-degree misdemeanor for the first offense and a first-degree misdemeanor for the second offense (Fla. Stat. §212.07(3)(b)). Three or more willful failures on amounts under $300 rise to the level of a third-degree felony, with the potential for prison time. Any willful failures on amounts of $300 or more also are felonies, with the degree climbing depending on the amount. Florida also imposes a penalty for failure to remit taxes, for which the felony threshold is $1,000 (Fla. Stat. §212.15(2)).
The combination of expansive responsible person rules and the multiplier effect of the Wayfair decision could add up to surprising — and quite costly — tax bills for certain individuals in the not-too-distant future.
Imagine, for example, someone who worked as a controller at a startup that sold some type of digital product or service but has since gone bankrupt or been acquired by a buyer that purchased the assets without assuming the legal obligations. He or she might face compounded liability, spread across 45 states and the District of Columbia, depending on his or her job responsibilities at the business. And responsible person tax debts are not dischargeable in personal bankruptcy.
It is critical, therefore, that companies with interstate sales evaluate their exposure to sales-and-use-tax liability. At a bare minimum, if the company satisfies the South Dakota thresholds (at least 200 sales or sales totaling at least $100,000 in the state, on an annual basis) in multiple states, it probably is subject to multijurisdictional registration and collection requirements for sales and use taxes.
A more thorough prospective and historical nexus review is advisable for every company that conducts interstate sales. These companies should determine their sales in every state that collects sales and use taxes.
They also should closely scrutinize each state's rules, staying cognizant of nontraditional products and services, the sales activity thresholds, and the fact that products that are not taxable in one state might be in other states.
South Dakota, for example, takes an aggressive stance toward digital goods and services, taxing all "products transferred electronically" and digital codes (S.D. Codified Laws §10-45-5). North Dakota, on the other hand, exempts items delivered electronically, including specified digital products, from sales tax (N.D. Cent. Code §57-39.2-04).
Moreover, taxability might depend on the rights of use or conditions for continued payment associated with the product. Indiana, for example, levies a sales and use tax only on electronic transfers of specified digital products when the right of permanent use is not conditioned on continued payment by the purchaser (Ind. Code §6-2.5-4-16.4(b)). By contrast, South Dakota imposes its sales and use tax on products transferred electronically and on digital codes regardless of whether the sale is to an end user, grants permanent or less than permanent use, or is conditioned on continued payment (S.D. Codified Laws §10-45-2.4).
MINIMIZING THE RISKS
In the wake of Wayfair, states across the country are moving to adopt economic nexus rules to impose sales-and-use-tax collection responsibilities on remote sellers. States also might conduct audits of companies that were not on their radar before Wayfair because those companies did not have a physical presence in the jurisdictions but, the states now realize, did have sufficient economic nexus.
These types of lookbacks undoubtedly will happen if an economic downturn occurs and states once again are scrambling to fill their coffers. The liability risks in these circumstances are particularly significant for companies with sales in states with broad responsible person rules.
As new nexus rules are adopted, states likely will be inundated with new taxpayer registrations, and harried state revenue department personnel will be kept busy processing an increased number of tax returns. This situation could limit state scrutiny of newly registered companies with ambiguous nexus histories. If material prior-year tax exposure exists, companies should be aware that state officials generally treat favorably companies that take advantage of voluntary disclosure programs. A business that goes this route can secure an agreement requiring payment of only a few years' worth of unremitted sales and use taxes, plus interest, with penalties often waived.
Companies without historical sales-and-use-tax reporting obligations are not in the clear. They need to understand the various economic nexus standards being adopted by states, along with applicable registration requirements. And, if registration is required, processes for collecting and reporting tax and evaluating the often disparate sales-and-use-tax rules must be established.
The collision of Wayfair's greatly expanded boundaries for imposing sales-and-use-tax collection and reporting obligations with statutory responsible person rules has the potential to burden unsuspecting individuals with hefty tax bills as well as civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. Companies should act now to evaluate their sales-and-use-tax nexus profile, assure compliance going forward, and, if confronted with material historical liabilities, consider pursuing voluntary disclosure agreements to mitigate tax audit and assessment risks.
Now what about continental Europe?
Tax residency is more than the 183 day rule and specific steps and
conditions are required for tax non-residency.
Failure to adhere to these rules has meant that they owe money in back
taxes and face penalties and interest. I
have seen it referred to as the “nomad tax trap”
One nomad told me that the EU has no authority…
The ongoing drama around sales and use taxes continues. Despite the fact that forty-one states, two
U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia joined the amicus brief
supporting South Dakota’s position before the Supreme Court and stating
otherwise, the State of California is now retroactively seeking sales tax from
out-of-state online merchants, going back as far as 2012.
How is this possible? Prior to Wayfair, there
were many other kinds of nexus statutes on the books of states that businesses
had to comply with, e.g., “click-thru nexus”, “cookie nexus”, “affiliate
nexus”, “marketplace nexus”, etc. These nexus rules were variations on the
physical presence test under Quill. However, post-Wayfair, those
laws are still on the books and so far, remain effective for current as well as
past years. And there are two risks here. .The first risk is that these rules might have
applied to the business in the past (whether it knew it, should have known it
or not) and so in its zeal t…
1. An individual who is a resident of Singapore for tax purposes is taxable on his income derived from Singapore as well as income from overseas remitted to Singapore. A non-resident individual is taxable on his income derived from Singapore only.
2. A Singaporean who goes on his own or is sent by his employer to work overseas is treated as a tax resident during the period of his overseas employment because he intends to return to Singapore. Consequently, he is taxed in Singapore on that portion of his overseas employment income which he remits to Singapore. Should his overseas employment be already taxed there, credit for the foreign tax is allowed if the country he works in has a tax treaty with Singapore or is one of the countries where credit for foreign tax is allowed without a tax treaty.
3. To remove any disincentive for Singaporeans to work abroad, IRAS has, as an administrative practice, been allowing individual taxpayers the choice o…
International Entrepreneurs can often get confused when they are learn that incorporating an entity in a so-called tax haven (eg Panama, Cook Islands, Liberia or a Dubai IBC) may be useless if they in turn operate this company in a high tax jurisdiction. . The issue is the definition of tax residence for corporations. There are essentially 3 models for corporate tax residence -
1. Some countries determine the residence of a corporation based on formal criteria such as place of incorporation. An example in Taiwan, as at the time of writing in early 2019, corporate residence is determined based on where the corporate entity is incorporated, regardless of the place of effective management. Please note that this is expected to change as a result of a new regulation soon to be enacted.
2. In other countries, the residence of a corporation is determined by reference factual criteria such as place of effective management or similar concepts. In Singapore and Hong Kong eg, tax rules te…