I’m the founder and primary stockholder of a software company in Boulder. When the legislature first proposed taxing software I supported the measure as I felt we software companies should not get a free ride. When the bill was first passed, I contacted the Department of Revenue asking what we needed to do, so we could comply for sales in Colorado.
And with that first attempted contact I started down a road that taught me the incredible frustration and expense of working with governmental taxing authorities. It has also opened my eyes to the incredible job killer we have in the combination of high overhead taxes, unworkable taxing regulations, unresponsive taxing authorities, & a sales tax structure beyond the wildest dreams of Rube Goldberg.
Note: Sorry for the length, but I wanted to lay out the specifics rather than just rant about the conclusions. I also have a separate post discussing the use tax.
Let’s start with a question I asked both the State and City of Boulder Revenue departments:
Q: We have a customer that has a large presence in Boulder. We sold to a group in New Jersey, to be used in Poland, and paid for out of Chicago. But the Boulder facility may (they aren’t sure) use the system with our software, but probably running on servers in New Jersey.
Colorado: If the software is sold for multiple points of use, the purchaser is liable to remit the tax, not the vendor. The purchaser should give the vendor a multiple points of use exemption certificate. Tax should be apportioned on the purchase price on the basis of the location of the users that are licensed to use the product at the time of purchase. If those locations are not know, the purchaser should use its best business judgment to identify the number of expected users in Colorado based on the facts as they exist at the time of the sale.
Boulder: A delivery or download address must be established to determine where taxation should occur. If it is not clear, Boulder would tax the use of the software here unless proof could be provided that a legally imposed tax was charged and paid somewhere else.
We sell software to a large chunk of the fortune 1000. In many cases the software is used in a large number of their offices worldwide, including Boulder. But the use in Colorado is a tiny percentage of the total use. Requiring companies to audit use so that Boulder and Colorado could receive their percentage of the sales tax would be prohibitively expensive. What companies will do in that case is instruct their purchasing departments that they cannot buy from Colorado companies – which would devastate the software industry in this state.
Keep in mind, this is the law today. If either the State or Boulder decides to enforce this against a company, that company will see their sales drop to zero. And when that company is put out of business, all of those jobs are gone. And these jobs will be destroyed for no advantage because this tax will never be calculated – the expense of doing so is too disproportionate.
Problem to business: Potential sales stopper. Significant uncertainty facing any Colorado company selling enterprise software.
Problem to state: Driving companies out of business increases unemployment and decreases tax revenue.
Next, there are several questions where the State & Boulder would differ on if it was taxable. In Colorado we have 89 Home Rule Cities as well as the state. Determining what tax level for an address can be automated (there are programs available). Filing with each jurisdiction is a moderate cost (in time finding out what we need to do, filling out the forms, etc). But determining if a jurisdiction considers a specific type of sale taxable – that is a significant effort & expense and has to be done on a per jurisdiction basis.
Problem to business: Giant sales blocker, because we need to contact the appropriate taxing authorities for any sale in the state, and then wait to get an answer. Significant uncertainty if we are told to ask our tax accountant as the appropriate authorities may not agree with him.
Next was the reaction of the state Department of Revenue to the questions being asked. As we dove in to specifics the Department of Revenue declined to answer as they might constitute legal advice. Now I understand if they give us an answer with the caveat that our accountant might disagree. But if the answers from the State sound reasonable, and my accountant doesn’t have a compelling reason why we could save a lot by taking another approach – we’ll go with what the State suggests.
Keep in mind, our goal is not to pay the smallest possible amount to the state, it’s to first minimize uncertainty and second to minimize total costs (and fighting a tax issue is expensive in time, mind-share, and dollars). Getting specific answers from the state, and thereby paying a bit more in tax – well worth it. What is really bothersome about this is that we approached this relationship trying to be cooperative but the revenue departments insist on a relationship that is antagonistic. Encouraging us to use a tax expert, when a tax expert has a self interest in finding savings that can then lead to disputes – that is fundamentally antagonistic.
I want to note that Boulder at first was very cooperative in answering questions. Their answers was if it existed, they would try to tax it, but they were very cooperative in answering. However once I mentioned that I was going to blog the answers they then required all questions go to Patrick “No Answers” Von Keyserling who does a great impersonation of a brick wall.
Problem to business: Injects uncertainty in every sale. Increases costs.
Problem to State: Increases cost of collecting (tax disputes), reduces taxes collected.
Next comes the issue of getting timely answers. The City of Boulder did great on this measure. But for the State of Colorado the process was:
We have sales of $50,000.00 that can go from hello to sold in a day (rare it’s that fast, but it happens). When the total is 50K the government is understandably very interested in getting their taxes. But the use tends to be complex in terms of where the software goes and where the person putting it there is. Sometimes it’s a question of is it software or a service. A 3 week delay endangers the sale. And it makes a company value our product less because of the additional overhead of buying from a company in Colorado.
Problem to business: Sales blocker, increased cost.
Problem to State: Reduced tax revenue (due to sales lost because of this delay).
Here’s the giant problem with the above. If the economy was doing great then the State making companies less efficient, costing many some business, and driving a few out of business would be no big deal (except to the people that had their money and dreams invested in the companies the State destroyed). But the economy is in the toilet and the true unemployment/underemployment rate is around 18%. We need more jobs. We need to help companies, not hurt them.
Or to put it in terms of pure self-interest to the state, the more companies can concentrate on selling more product, the greater the tax revenue (both from the sales and from taxes from additional employees) and the less the State expenses (fewer people unemployed). Although that does raise the question, does the State fundamentally have a self-interest in the economy improving?
What’s my take on this? First off, sales tax is a cost prohibitive way to raise revenue in an economy where more and more of what is sold is bits instead of atoms. We have a growing chunk of the economy where the cost to determine what is taxable will be a substantial proportion of the tax collected. A system this disproportionate is very harmful to the economy of our state. Medium term the only workable solution is to eliminate sales tax except for a few specifics like gas and cigarettes and increase revenue from income and property tax.
I want to stress, I am not proposing lower total taxes, I am proposing we eliminate sales tax and increase property & income tax to make up the difference.
Short term we need to do a couple of things:
The above 4 steps can increase jobs in Colorado and increase tax revenue for the State. Implementing the above means instead of wasting time & money on guessing what to do on taxes, I can put it toward additional salespeople. And additional sales has a wonderful multiplier that lets me then hire more people.
In addition, drastically reducing the overhead of collecting taxes will significantly reduce the opposition you get from business over taxes. A business looks at the total cost, not just the amount paid to the government. If that total cost is reduced, opposition drops.
So my question to Governor Ritter, the Legislature, the City of Boulder (and other home rule cities) – are you willing to do the above to increase jobs? (Note to the Republican members of the Legislature – “taxes bad” is not solving this problem.)
Note: I presented some of the above to the Boulder City Council recently and they asked for it in written form. No answer yet but this was real recent so I am hopeful they will, at a minimum, bring sanity to when to tax a transaction. I asked to speak to Roxy Huber who is the Director of the State Department of Revenue to get her take on the above. I was told that she was too busy to talk to anyone, and that she’s not doing anything (it was a very bizarre conversation). I asked Evan Dreyer if I could speak to Governor Ritter on this and so far no reply. So I tried to get their side on this.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
BY: davebarnes
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Colorado Pols
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Specifically, I’m thinking about CA, MA and WA.
Specifically, I’m thinking about CA, MA and WA.
They have a single state-wide tax rate and the state collects all sales tax and then dispurses it. So you do have a single contact point and a single set of rules.
No idea if they understand how to tax digital goods. I’ll ask.
The National Council of State Legislatures
http://www.ncsl.org/
And I’m sure you realize that the current Colorado situation is as much a result of TABOR and other arcana as a poor ability to administer this particular tax.
It’s much more because of TABOR than poor administration implementation.
All 5 short term suggestions above are not impacted by TABOR in any way.
So I guess we’re even.
It is one of them. But the larger problem is laws that don’t understand a world of digital products.
I also never think govt. inefficiency is an excuse. I do think it is many times an issue that needs to be addressed.
The Legislature was constrained by not wanting to put anything on the ballot.
Removing previously granted exemptions does that.
1. Why won’t they put anything on the ballot? TABOR does not say no new taxes, it just says you have to ask first. Why is everyone so afraid to try?
2. Doing what we can now is a good idea. I just think it should have been done intelligently and with competent execution.
Keep in mind I supported the software sales tax when first proposed. I am not proposing ending it. I am just saying we need to implement it intelligently and competently.
It costs political capital, it costs actual capital, and costs time.
We shouldn’t be so restricted as to have to wait until November every year to fix a fiscal problem that needed to be solved in January. Besides, the Republicans use it as a way to attack Democrats every time they do try to get a tax increase passed through TABOR. It creates a political circus, instead of doing what’s right for our state in the long run.
TABOR is a mess in many ways. And if I got to pick, it would not exist at all. But I don’t think the requirement that the government has to ask to increase taxes is horribly bad.
Yes it takes time, costs, etc. So do elections for our reps – but that doesn’t mean we eliminate elections to office.
I would prefer to see sales taxes eliminated.
Partly because they are regressive but also because they make much less sense in the digital era.
See http://www.streamlinedsalestax…
TABOR severely restricts the ability of the legislature to manage the state’s revenue. Thankfully, the State Supreme Court decided that removing tax credits was constitutional, and so the legislature could find a few scraps–though definitely not enough to fill the entire budget gap.
IF TABOR wasn’t as restrictive, then the legislature could have voted to increase the state sales tax .5% or so, and the problem may have been solved without having to do all the exemption repealing that David doesn’t like.
TABOR is at the heart of the problem.
Seeing as this is the law of the land and your short term plans certainly will not be implemented today, what is your company’s plan to deal with this? Ignore the horrible parts? Stop selling in CO?
1. Spend the money required to give the state what it requests. Result, one less salesperson hired (and because we don’t get those sales – a couple less other people hired).
2. If we get a customer in Boulder, tell them they must buy from a distributor.
3. If we get other cities in Colorado saying we must report to them (ie the Amazon law), then tell all Colorado customers they must buy from a distributor.
4. If the state or Boulder decides to tell every one of our large customers that they must do a usage audit – fight like hell in court because that would put us out of business. (And do my damnedest to get McInnis and a Republican majority elected to the legislature – because survival comes first.)
ps – The suggested distributors are all out of state so that the whole sales tax issue is avoided.
Given how the law is written, I would think that #3 and #4 should happen from a taxing authority who is following the law.
Under what legal theory would you fight in court? Is there some “you can’t pass stupid tax rules” law that I am unaware of?
In that case we hire a lawyer (which also slows down additional hiring here) and have them figure it out. I know there are constraints in business law that required effort cannot be disproportionate. It would probably be something along these lines.
have you/your company spent on this issue already?
And that’s with no sales tax collected yet – but it does include paying our last 3 years of use tax.