Friday, May 25, 2012

Some Sunshine in Vermont: Sales Tax on Cloud Computing Services


I recently authored an article in State Tax Notes entitled “Let the Sunshine In: The Age of Cloud Computing”, which describes the murky area of state taxation of cloud computing services.  On May 24, 2012, Vermont brought some sunshine to this cloudy area. 
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a bill that temporarily exempts charges for pre-written software accessed remotely.  This is knows as “software as a service” or “SaaS.” 
In particular, the legislation prohibits the Vermont Department of Taxes from assessing sales and use taxes on charges for SaaS.  This prohibition is for the period of January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2013.  The law also provides that any taxes paid during this period may be refunded, as long as the statute of limitations has not expired and the claimant provides proper documentation. The legislation would cause the abatement of any pending assessments for taxes on charges for SaaS during this period.
The new law does not affect the tax on digital products.  Thus, if a Vermont customer were to download software or music, the customer would be liable for the Vermont sales and use tax. 
In addition, the Governing Board for the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement is scheduled to have a policy discussion regarding taxation of cloud computing at its meeting in August.  It is likely that more and more states will take up the issue of sales tax on the various types of cloud computing services.

Illinois Circuit Court Enters Written Order That Illinois Affiliate Nexus Law Is Unconstitutional

On May 11, 2012, Judge Robert Lopez Cepero of the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County, entered a written order (“May 11 Order”) granting summary judgment to the Performance Marketing Association (“PMA”) in its challenge to the 2011 Illinois affiliate nexus statute.   The Court ruled that the Illinois law fails the “substantial nexus” requirement for state taxes under the Commerce Clause and violates the federal moratorium on state taxes that discriminate against electronic commerce under the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”). The Court’s May 11 Order memorializes Judge Cepero’s ruling from the bench after oral argument on April 25, 2012, previously reported in our blog on April 26.(The May 11 Order is styled an “Amended Order,” because it addresses certain technical requirements of a local Illinois Supreme Court Rule not originally addressed in a written order issued by the Court on May 7, 2012.)

The Illinois affiliate nexus statute by its terms imposed an obligation to collect Illinois use tax on any out-of-state Internet retailer that enters into a contract with an Illinois Internet affiliate for a link on the affiliate’s website that connects Internet users to the e-retailer’s website, where the affiliate is compensated based on sales made by the retailer to such customers, and the total receipts by the retailer resulting from all such sales is in excess of $10,000. In striking down the law as unconstitutional, the Court concluded that such affiliate relationships are insufficient to create nexus and that, by failing the “substantial nexus” test, the statute is “facially invalid and unenforceable.” May 11 Order at para. 1.a.

The May 11 Order makes clear that the Defendant, the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue, has 30 days from the date of the order, or until June 11, 2012, to appeal the ruling directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. The State is expected to appeal.

George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson represent the PMA in the case.

Monday, May 21, 2012

The Easy Road for Article 9 in Florida

Summer is upon us, a good reminder that the effective date of Revised Article 9 is coming in just a year (the "Revision"). Of course, one of the main issues within Article 9, which gave rise to the Revision, was the lack of specificity in the way in which a secured party should provide the name of an individual debtor on a financing statement. To resolve this problem, a joint review committee was appointed by the American Legal Institute (ALI) and the Uniform Law Commission (ULC). The joint review committee produced two alternatives from which states would be free to choose. Alternative “A” sets up a hierarchy for individual names which requires a creditor to use the name on the most recent driver’s license, if the debtor has one. While Alternative “B” allows the creditor more flexibility in listing the individual debtor’s name, allowing the creditor to identify the debtor on the financing statement by the individual name, the surname and personal name, or the name on the debtor’s most recent driver’s license. See, What's in a Name

As I am getting ready to teach a Commercial Law Survey course, I know that the students will ask about the Revision and its progress here in Florida. Perhaps indicative of the easy road the Revision will have, the status of Article 9 in Florida has already been decided. Florida has enacted the 2010 amendments to UCC Article 9 through House Bill 483 (HB 483). The law provides Alternative “A” for individual debtor names in Section 9-503(a)(4) and takes effect on July 1, 2013, right on schedule. The bill was presented to the Governor on March 23, 2012 and was subsequently signed into law on April 6, 2012. The only small departure from the official text of the Article 9 amendments is a non-uniform version of Section 9-521. Under HB 483, the Florida version of Section 9-521 directs the secretary of state to develop or approve forms.

While Florida is neither the first, nor the last state to consider the Revision, its pathway with little resistance is a good sign for its fate going forward. Let's just hope that the Revision proves successful in its treatment of outstanding issues like debtor names that have provided much litigation.


-JSM

Friday, May 18, 2012

FTC Report outlines Consumer Privacy Framework, urges self-regulation

Following on the heels of the White House’s “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights,” (recently discussed in this space), the Federal Trade Commission released its own final report on Consumer Privacy last month: “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change, Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers.” The issue of consumer privacy online continues to receive sustained attention from privacy advocates, policymakers and journalists (see, for example, the Wall Street Journal’s “What they Know” series), and this latest policy paper highlights a number of important areas for retailers.

The Commission’s Report, like the White House Report before it, is at heart a set of recommendations.  Its publication does not change the state of the law, or impose any new obligations on companies with respect to privacy.  While the Commission does urge Congress to pass targeted legislation requiring greater transparency in the data broker industry, its approach is primarily focused on encouraging industry self-regulation.  The advantages of this approach for industry sectors are obvious: by acting affirmatively in an area of public concern, industries can have a hand in shaping the rules so that they appropriately reflect the realities of a particular sector.  An adequate system of self-regulation could eliminate the perceived need for further regulatory or legislative action.  Companies should keep in mind, however, that once they adopt a voluntary code of conduct, they must abide by it, or they may open themselves up to an FTC enforcement action.  The practical lesson is simple: companies should only make promises they intend to keep.

The Commission outlines a privacy framework that it believes should be the basis for the voluntary codes of conduct it hopes companies will develop and adopt.  The four key areas of focus are:

Scope: The Commission applies its privacy framework to all companies that handle personal data, with a limited exception for companies that handle personal data for fewer than 5,000 individuals a year, and who do not share that data with any third parties.  The framework applies to data that is “Reasonably linkable to a specific consumer, computer, or device.”  This definition is an expansion of the traditional definition of “Personally Identifiable Information,” and reflects, in part, the Commission’s concern that data which has been removed of personally-identifiable characteristics, or “de-identified,” can often be re-identified.   

Privacy By Design: The Commission urges companies to adopt privacy practices consistent with the “Privacy by Design” model.  This means implementing practices that reflect the substantive principles of Data Security, Reasonable Collection Limits, Sound Retention Practices, and Data Accuracy.  These principles recognize that there is often both a business need and a consumer benefit associated with the collection and use of personal data, but requires that the scope of data collection and retention be reasonably related to the purpose for which it is collected.

Simplified Consumer Choice:  The Commission believes that consumers should be given meaningful and understandable choices about the way their personal data is collected and used by companies.  One of the important features of the Framework is its emphasis on context in determining the appropriate level of choice required for a particular data practice.  Thus, companies who collect personal data directly from consumers may use that data without offering a consumer any choice, when they engage in certain “commonly accepted” practices, including 1) product and service fulfillment; 2) internal operations; 3) fraud prevention; 4) legal compliance and public purpose; and 5) most first-party marketing.  For other types of data uses, including tracking across websites for behavior-based advertising, the Commission calls for companies to offer consumers clear choices, provided at a relevant time.  This includes respecting consumers’ use of a “do not track” option on web browsers.  

Increased Transparency: Consistent with its focus on the context in which personal data is collected and used, the Commission calls for increased transparency regarding consumer privacy practices.  It is particularly concerned with practices that take place without consumer awareness, including the practice of “data enhancement,” in which companies take personal data they have collected in the context of a relationship with a consumer, and combine it with data obtained by third party data brokers to create detailed consumer profiles.  Because data brokers – who collect and sell personal information about consumers directly to other businesses for marketing or other purposes – are largely invisible to consumers, it is difficult for consumers to exercise choices about the way their personal data is collected and used by these brokers.  The Commission supports targeted legislation to increase the transparency of the data broker industry, and suggests the creation of a centralized data broker portal, that consumers could visit to learn more about what information data brokers have collected about them, to verify the accuracy of that data, and to exercise appropriate choice.

The Commission’s emphasis on context reflects a new way of thinking about privacy in the internet era.  In a world of social media, consumers are accustomed to sharing some personal data and to making trade-offs relating to privacy, but they are concerned when a company’s collection or use of personal data is surprising or inappropriate to the service being provided.  Google and Facebook, for example, provide free services to consumers in exchange for using consumer-provided personal data to target those consumers for advertising.  Both companies ran afoul of the FTC, however, when they unilaterally made public certain information that consumers had previously assumed to be private.  The Commission deemed these actions to be unfair and deceptive trade practices and brought enforcement actions.  As a result of settlements with the Commission, both Google and Facebook have agreed to obtain affirmative, express consent from consumers before materially altering their privacy policies, and to submitting to 20 years of privacy audits.

For retailers, the Commission’s Report, and its record of enforcement in the Consumer Privacy area, illustrates an important truth about privacy: the practices that will receive the greatest scrutiny, and provoke the strongest reaction – be it public outcry, regulatory enforcement or legislative action – are those practices which are generally unknown to consumers, and which, when they come to light, strike consumers as surprising and inappropriate.  One way to guard against this kind of outcry is to take steps to better explain the ways that personal data is collected and used.  On the other hand, a sure way to provoke outcry and invite regulatory attention is to take a public position on privacy and then unilaterally fail to abide by it.

Regulators generally recognize that the collection and use of personal information is essential to the growth of the internet economy.  With their focus on encouraging self-regulation, the White House and the Commission hope to strike a balance that allows for continued innovation, while giving consumers greater comfort and more control regarding the ways their information is collected and used.  By cooperating with the Commission in developing sector-specific codes of conduct, retailers and other companies who collect and use personal data in the course of business have an opportunity to shape the rules pertaining to acceptable data practices.  The Commission does view these proposed self-regulatory codes of conduct as enforceable, however, and it will investigate companies found to be violating their own commitments.  Companies should thus be cautious in developing their privacy policies, and should only make commitments they are confident they can honor.

Co-authored by Nat Bessey

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

CALI Annual Conference: Some Assembly Required

Paul Caron recently posted over at TaxProf Blog about the annual CALI Conference upcoming at Thomas Jefferson School of Law June 21-23.   There are plenty of sessions for faculty from building online courses to contract drafting.  Also, there will be an update on the ELangdell project.  CALI is hosting free open source books targeted to the law school audience, including texts for the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Rules and Securities Law Statutes.  Not likely to have the Uniform Commercial Code published for free, but here's to hoping. Also, for those teaching Contracts next year and not yet committed to a text, Professor Verkerke's Collaborative Teaching Materials For Contracts will be available soon.  And, yes, for free.  I've already reviewed this text, and it is sure to draw an audience.

- JSM