Industries

Helping clients meet their business challenges begins with an in-depth understanding of the industries in which they work. That’s why KPMG LLP established its industry-driven structure. In fact, KPMG LLP was the first of the Big Four firms to organize itself along the same industry lines as clients.

How We Work

We bring together passionate problem-solvers, innovative technologies, and full-service capabilities to create opportunity with every insight.

Learn more

Careers & Culture

What is culture? Culture is how we do things around here. It is the combination of a predominant mindset, actions (both big and small) that we all commit to every day, and the underlying processes, programs and systems supporting how work gets done.

Learn more

TWIST - This Week in State Tax

10.31.2022 | Duration: 3:16

Summary of state tax developments in Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Washington.

Apple
Listen Now
Backward 10s Play Pause Forward 10s
0:00
00:00

Podcast overview

Welcome to TWIST for the week of October 31, 2022, featuring Sarah McGahan from the KPMG Washington National Tax state and local tax practice.

First up today, the Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue recently denied a petition protesting the Department’s application of the sourcing rules for tangible personal property to a taxpayer’s sales of digital content. The taxpayer filed its original returns treating its receipts from sales of digital audio books and other digital content as sales of intangibles sourced using the costs of performance method. On audit, the Department applied the sourcing rules for sales of tangible personal property. After the taxpayer protested, the matter made its way to the Board of Finance and Revenue. In the Board’s view, the taxpayer was in fact selling tangible personal property that should be sourced based on delivery location. The Board found that the digital audio books sold by the taxpayer were akin to tangible personal property under the “essence of the transaction” test that is typically applied in the sales tax context to determine the nature of a sale.

In a recent ruling, the South Carolina Department of Revenue addressed whether sales tax applies to separately stated fees charged in connection with the retail sale of tangible personal property. The ruling addressed situations in which retailers add “inflation fees,” “convenience fees,” or “non-cash adjustment fees,” to a customer’s receipt or invoice to recover certain operating costs. The Department concluded that the fees at issue would be included in the “gross proceeds of sales” or “sales price” and subject to sales and use tax, assuming the underlying retail transaction was subject to sales and use tax. 

In a recently released determination, a Washington State Tax Review Officer addressed the manner for attributing a law firm’s receipts from providing patent acquisition services to Washington State. The key issue before the Hearing Officer was where the taxpayer’s customers received the benefit of the taxpayer’s services. The taxpayer asserted that 1/64 of its receipts should be apportioned to Washington because the benefits of its patent procurement services were received equally in each of the 64 U.S. states, territories, and possessions where a client received patent protection. The Hearing Officer disagreed, concluding that the appropriate location to source the receipts was where the clients’ general strategic planning and corporate management activities occurred, which was at the clients’ headquarters locations.

Finally, the Washington Department of Revenue hosted a listening session for taxpayers to provide feedback and ask questions about its interim statement addressing tax issues associated with NFTs. On the call, a policy representative from the Department explained that Washington taxes digital goods, digital codes, and digital automated services, and that any NFTs associated with such taxable items would be subject to tax in the same manner and for the same time frame as such other taxable digital products.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania: Digital Goods Sourced for Corporate Net Income Tax Purposes Using Rules for TPP

The Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue recently denied a petition protesting the Department’s application of the sourcing rules for tangible personal property to the taxpayer’s sales of digital content. The taxpayer at issue entered into licensing agreements with content rights holders to license and distribute spoken audio content in exchange for royalty payments.  The copyrighted content was sublicensed to the taxpayer’s customers, who were granted a limited license to download and use the digital content. On its original corporate net income tax returns, the taxpayer applied the costs of performance method to source its receipts.  On audit, it was uncovered that a past decision of the Board of Finance and Revenue had classified the taxpayer’s sales as sales of tangible personal property, and the auditor adjusted the sales factor for the current period accordingly. After the Board of Appeals denied relief, the taxpayer appealed. In the taxpayer’s view, its receipts should be classified as sales of intangible personal property sourced using the costs of performance method. The taxpayer contended the majority of its labor costs to maintain its digital content and execute licensing agreements (among other activities) occurred in New Jersey at its headquarters, meaning its receipts should be sourced to New Jersey.

The Board denied the appeal on the basis that the taxpayer had not established that it was selling intangibles. In the Board’s view, the taxpayer was in fact selling tangible personal property that should be sourced based on delivery location. The Board found that the digital audio books sold by the taxpayer were akin to tangible personal property under the “essence of the transaction” test that is typically applied in the sales tax context to determine the nature of a sale.  The Board noted that the books were mass produced and not customized for each customer, contained knowledge recorded in a physical form which had physical existence, and took up space on a tangible medium (e.g., disc or hard drive). In the Board’s view, the digital audio file, when downloaded by the customer, was ultimately a book recorded and stored in physical form upon a physical object. The Board also denied the taxpayer’s request for a special apportionment method.  Please contact Mark Achord with questions on BF&R Docket No. 2122314.

South Carolina

South Carolina: Retailer Imposed Fees Subject to Sales Tax

In a recent ruling, the South Carolina Department of Revenue addressed whether sales tax applies to separately stated fees charged in connection with the retail sale of tangible personal property. The ruling addressed situations in which retailers add “inflation fees,” “convenience fees,” or “non-cash adjustment fees,” to a customer’s receipt or invoice to recover certain operating costs.  Under South Carolina law, “gross proceeds” and “sales price” are similarly defined in both the sales and use contexts as “the total value accruing from the sale, lease or rental of tangible personal property” without deducting expenses such as the cost of goods sold and the cost of materials, labor, or service. The “measure” of the sales and use tax is the total proceeds of a sale (i.e., it is the sum of all consideration received in conjunction with the sale of tangible personal property, without any deductions, unless specifically provided). The Department concluded that the fees at issue would be included in the “gross proceeds of sales” or “sales price” and subject to sales and use tax, assuming the retail transaction was subject to sales and use tax.  If an “inflation fee,” “convenience fee,” “non-cash adjustment fee,” or similar type of fee is imposed on sales that include both exempt and taxable items, then the sales and use tax is due only on that portion of the fee related to the taxable items, provided the seller can reasonably prorate the fee between the taxable items and nontaxable items sold based on his books and records. Please contact Nicole Umpleby with questions on South Carolina Revenue Ruling #22-10.

Washington

Washington: Department Addresses Law Firm Economic Nexus; Apportionment

In a recently released determination, a Washington State Tax Review Officer addressed the manner for attributing a law firm’s receipts from providing patent acquisition services to Washington State and whether the taxpayer met the state’s B&O economic nexus standard. The taxpayer at issue was an out of state law firm that specialized in procuring patents for clients, including clients headquartered in Washington State. The Department of Revenue and the taxpayer agreed that the taxpayer’s gross receipts were apportionable income but disagreed as to the amount attributed to Washington. The taxpayer asserted that 1/64 (1.56 percent) of its receipts should be apportioned to Washington because the benefits of its patent procurement services were received equally in each of the 64 U.S. states, territories, and possessions where a client received patent protection. Accordingly, the taxpayer assigned 1/64 of its receipts to Washington; when assigned in this manner, the taxpayer did not meet the state’s economic nexus threshold for the tax year at issue. On audit, the Department determined the taxpayer’s receipts should be sourced to Washington based on the headquarters address of its customers.  The matter eventually came before the Hearing Officer.

The key issue before the Hearing Officer was where the taxpayer’s customers received the benefit of the taxpayer’s services, which was determined to be the location where the customers’ related business activity occurred.  Because acquiring patents was a detailed and time-consuming process that involved broad strategic decisions from a client’s management and corporate legal counsel, the Hearing Officer determined that the taxpayer’s customers’ relevant related business activity was strategic planning and general corporate management, rather than the customers’ selling activities.   While the patents allowed the holder to protect the market for its sale of a product that incorporates the patented invention, such protection required litigation to enforce the patent. Importantly, the taxpayer did not litigate to enforce patents, but only acquired patents for its customers. As such, the Hearing Officer concluded that the taxpayer’s services were detached from its customer’s selling activity and related more to its customers’ general strategic planning and corporate management.  Next the Hearing Officer addressed where these strategic and management decisions occurred, noting that the patent acquisition process was so cumbersome that it required “broad strategic decisions” from those management and legal personnel who are presumed to work from that customers’ headquarters. As a result, the Hearing Officer concluded that when the customers’ related business activities occurred at the customers’ headquarters in Washington State those receipts would be included in the Washington sales factor numerator. Please contact Michele Baisler with questions on Det. No. 21-0044, 41 WTD 355 (2022).

Washington: Department Provides Additional Insight on Taxation of NFTs

In July, the Department of Revenue released an interim statement addressing various tax issues related to NFTs, including how and when NFTs are taxed, how to determine the selling price of an NFT, and the sourcing rules that apply to retail sales of NFTs. The interim statement also confirmed that marketplace facilitators will be required to remit taxes on sales of NFTs, and it provided guidance on the B&O tax treatment of income from sales of NFTs.

Last week, the Department hosted a listening session for taxpayers to provide feedback and ask questions about the interim statement. On the call, a policy representative from the Department explained that Washington taxes digital goods, digital codes, and digital automated services, and that NFTs associated with such items would be subject to tax dating back to the enactment of the law imposing tax on digital goods, digital codes, and digital automated services. The representative indicated that more guidance on this issue would be forthcoming. Please stay tuned to TWIST for additional guidance on the tax treatment of NFTs.

Meet our podcast host

Image of Sarah McGahan
Sarah McGahan
Managing Director, State & Local Tax, KPMG US

Discover more podcast episodes in this series

Explore more

Thank you!

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

Use this form to submit general inquiries to KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement.

An error occurred. Please contact customer support.

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Submit RFP

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

Headline