T +1 215 376 6050
T +1 215 701 8842
T +1 215 531 8612
T +1 215 701 8856
T +1 215 814 1779
Jamie C. Yesnowitz
T +1 202 521 1504
T +1 312 302 8617
T +1 513 345 4540
T +1 215 814 1743
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (Department) recently announced a 90-day Voluntary Compliance Program (Program) for any businesses that have inventory or store property in Pennsylvania, but are not registered to collect and remit Pennsylvania taxes.1
The Program allows taxpayers to resolve their outstanding tax liabilities with a limited lookback period and penalty relief when the business becomes compliant.
Operation of program
The Program will run until May 8, 2021. Businesses who participate in the Program will not be liable for taxes owed prior to Jan. 1, 2019, and will be given penalty relief for any non-compliance for past due tax returns not filed and taxes not paid.
To determine their eligibility for the Program, taxpayers are required to complete the Department’s Physical Presence Business Activity Questionnaire (BAQ). The BAQ asks taxpayers about their business activities in the state, whether they are already registered with the Department, whether any property or inventory is stored in the state, whether sales are made directly or through a marketplace facilitator, applicable marketplace facilitator information, and the amount of gross and taxable sales made into Pennsylvania during 2019. After reviewing the activities reported by the business, the Department will then contact the business to discuss how they may become compliant with their tax obligations.
The Program requires the business to register for applicable taxes, file any past due tax returns, and remit payment of taxes in order for penalties to be abated. The abatement of penalties is conditional on the business remaining compliant with the Department. Concurrent with the Program’s launch, the Department is sending letters to potentially applicable online sellers notifying them about the Program.
The Department’s Program provides an opportunity for any online retailer – regardless of size, entity type or location – that may have inventory located in Pennsylvania to become compliant with various state taxes. The Program is notable for its limited 90-day period and applicability to all tax types. With a limited lookback to Jan. 1, 2019, the Program’s terms are more favorable than the typical three- to five-year lookback periods offered under the Department’s normal voluntary disclosure program.2
The Program is intended for non-Pennsylvania based online retailers who may have had inventory stored in a marketplace facilitator’s distribution or fulfillment center located in the state during years preceding the Wayfair
decision. In the post-Wayfair
era, nearly all states have imposed sales tax collection responsibilities on marketplace facilitators such as Amazon. Under the Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA) program, retailers selling through Amazon’s online marketplace often retain title their product as Amazon transports it between distribution and/or fulfillment centers so that it may be delivered to the customer more quickly. Under this arrangement, inventory may end up in an intermediate state without the seller’s knowledge, giving retailers physical presence in a state where they may not be registered to collect sales tax. As a result, states have begun asserting nexus and sales tax obligations on businesses having inventory in their states during pre-Wayfair
In contrast to Pennsylvania, California has taken a more aggressive approach in assessing businesses for uncollected taxes on sales made through the FBA program if they had inventory stored in Amazon warehouses throughout the state. Small businesses have begun challenging such assessments in federal court. In Online Merchants Guild v. Maduros,3
an e-commerce trade group filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) for unlawfully seeking payment of unpaid sales taxes from out-of-state sellers who participated in Amazon’s FBA program before the enactment of California’s marketplace law in 2019.4
The sellers argue that Amazon should have collected and remitted tax on these prior sales, and that California’s effort violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in addition to the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA). In response, the CDTFA argues that the sellers had inventory nexus during prior years, thereby establishing physical presence in the state.
In a similar case, Rubinas v. Maduros,
an Illinois-based FBA seller filed a lawsuit against the CDTFA after the agency froze the business owner’s bank account in demanding payment of several years’ worth of unpaid sales tax on account of having inventory located in the state.5
The seller argues that the CDTFA’s sales tax assessment violates the ITFA, the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause by burdening small businesses in the interstate economy. The Rubinas
litigation is notable because it illustrates the impact of such tax obligations on small businesses who may not be able to pay the liabilities due. Such lawsuits emphasize the ongoing complexities and difficulties associated with the collection and remittance of sales taxes for small business marketplace sellers across the country.
Signifying a tamer approach to marketplace sales than California, Pennsylvania is encouraging out-of-state retailers to voluntarily come forward, disclose their business activities in the state and register for applicable taxes at an accelerated pace. By offering a limited lookback period and penalty abatement in exchange for filing returns and paying tax, the Department is providing FBA sellers an incentive to become compliant. Participation in the Program may speed resolution of such issues for potentially impacted businesses as well as provide certainty for prospective filing obligations.6
However, the Department’s letters to identified businesses suggest that failure to participate in the program and register with the state may result in additional enforcement actions and the forfeiture of penalty relief and limited lookback provisions offered under the program. In response, the Online Merchants Guild filed a complaint in federal court on February 26, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.7
Similar to the California litigation, the lawsuit alleges that the Department’s actions violate the Due Process and Commerce Clauses, in addition to the ITFA. Pending the outcome of the litigation, businesses that are contacted about the Program and fail to participate within the 90-day period may be liable for taxes, interest, and penalties for an unlimited lookback period should the Department assert physical presence nexus under future audits or assessments.
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.