Draft - Meeting Minutes
SLAC Teleconference Meeting – March 10, 2009
Agenda:
Delivery Charge Amendment – 2//09/09 draft
Taxability Matrix changes related to delivery charge and direct mail
Discussion of Section 313 Sourcing Direct Mail
Prior to the teleconference a 3/5/09 draft of an amendment to Rule 327.4 Delivery Charge was distributed to the Listserv.
Sherry Harrell (TN) opened the teleconference by taking roll of members in attendance24 States present on call.
Amendment to Library of Definitions - Delivery Charge
Jerry Johnson (OK) stated the work group separated the delivery charge options to show delivery charges for products and services other than direct mail and delivery charge options for direct mail. The intent is for the amendment to be filed for consideration at the May 2009 Governing Board Meeting.
Kristi and Wayne discussed the language “otherwise the member state must require that they remain part of sales price”. Wayne had suggested addition of this language to assure a retailer can’t be sued because he didn’t separately state the charges. The goal is to make it clear if the retailer doesn’t separate the charges, then there is no option for the retailer to not include the delivery charge in the taxable sales price. They will work on possibly making this a separate sentence.
Jerry Johnson (OK) asked if any there were any substantive issues that remained regarding the amendment to the definition of delivery charges. None were stated.
Mark Nebergall (SoFTEC) offered editorial suggestions - renumbering of paragraphs and options so citing provisions in the definition would be easier to identify. He suggested the following changes in the language in last paragraph concerning allocation of delivery charges: 1) from “shipment that includes exempt property and taxable property” to “shipment that includes taxable property and non-taxable or exempt property;” 2) where the last sentence states, “the seller must tax” to “the seller shall collect any applicable tax;” 3) where the last sentence states, “but does not have to tax” to “and shall not collect any tax”.
NJ, OH, and TN expressed concerns that this language has been there since adopted and that no issues were present with it.
Deborah Bierbaum (AT&T) also stated concerns with using phrase “shall not collect” because if the seller doesn’t have a means to separate items sold and the seller taxes some non-taxable delivery charges it opens the way for a lawsuit.
Scott Peterson (SST) stated that the “must tax” language is an issue, but agreed that would require statute changes for states.
After further discussion it was decided that the fewer changes possible to existing language the better we are, and that clarification of language can be done through the rule.
Jerry Johnson (OK) stated intent is that the amendment and rule be presented for consideration at same time.
Taxability Matrix Changes
The taxability matrix changes were made so states can accurately indicate if each option available in the amended definition of delivery charges is included or excluded from the sales price.
Kristi Magill suggested that there be a line to show the treatment for all transactions; then have states complete the delivery charges for direct mail section only if the state has excluded any of the components for direct mail delivery charges differently from all other transactions. They will discuss further.
Amendment to Rule 327.4 Delivery Charge
Ellen Thompson (NE), Judy Niccum (MN), and Sherry Harrell (TN) worked on initial draft of the rule. Jerry Johnson (OK) then incorporated the BAC comments and suggestion to that draft and added additional language that corresponds to the proposed amendment to the definition of delivery charges
Scott Peterson indicated that if the changes to the delivery charge definition or changes in 327.4 rule that require a state to make changes to their statutes then it will probably need a second vote.
Sherry Harrell (TN) stated the intent is to notice the amended Rule 327.4 for public comment by tomorrow (March 11, 2009) and have a SLAC call on 3/31 to discuss public comments received and any changes needed. Public comment period is 20 days. Any vote to be taken during a SLAC teleconference meeting prior to the May Governing Board meeting would be included in the notice sent to the Listserv and posted on the web site.
Kristi Magill (RSM McGladrey) - suggested subsection C of Rule 327.4 may need further changes due to the change in how the definition of delivery charges has been amended. She will check with BAC delivery charge committee for comments as soon as possible.
Bill Riesenberger (OH) had concerns on page 3 of the amended Rule 327.4. Illustration I seems to define a situation and is the situation intended to apply to the other illustrations, if not, there needs to be a lead paragraph explaining for each illustration the state has adopted an exemption for direct mail that excludes transportation and/or postage or other options.
Also, on page 2 “in order for a seller to exclude . . .” is a statement that applies to all excluded options - that sentence should be somewhere in the rule where it shows it applies to all options.
Robert Thompson (OK) and Sherry Harrell (TN) will make what changes they can complete today. If they are unable to complete changes for all suggestions the amended Rule 327.4 can be noticed as is, then make additional changes or corrections once public comments are received.
Amendment to Section 313 Sourcing of Direct Mail
Jerry Johnson (OK) briefly discussed Section 313 Sourcing Direct Mail amendment. Stated concerns were expressed by states that are being reviewed and language drafted to cover those concerns. Intends to file an amendment for Section 313 for consideration at May 2009 Governing Board meeting.
A SLAC teleconference meeting will be scheduled on March 31, around 3 p.m. central.
Adjourned.
3