United States: Federal Court Of Appeals Orders Dismissal Of Case Granting Injunction Against Colorado’s Sales And Use Tax Notice And Reporting Requirements

On August 20, the Tenth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a U.S. District Court to dismiss a case in which a permanent injunction had been granted against the Colorado Department of Revenue that prevented the Department from enforcing Colorado's sales and use tax notice and reporting requirements for out-of-state (remote) retailers.1 After determining that the federal Tax Injunction Act (TIA)2 deprived the U.S. District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin Colorado's tax collection effort, the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to dissolve the permanent injunction and to dismiss the Commerce Clause claims raised by the remote retailers. Previously, the U.S. District Court had determined that Colorado's notice and reporting requirements violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In remanding the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals did not consider the merit of the constitutional arguments.

Background

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA), which consists of businesses and organizations that market products directly to consumers via catalogs, print advertisements, broadcast media and the Internet, filed a lawsuit against the Department in U.S. District Court. In its lawsuit, the DMA challenged the constitutionality of Colorado's sales and use tax notice and reporting requirements for remote retailers by asserting violations of the Commerce Clause.3

The District Court granted the DMA's motion for a preliminary injunction against the Department that prevented enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements on remote retailers pending a final determination in the case.4 Both the DMA and the Department subsequently filed cross motions for summary judgment.

On March 30, 2012, the District Court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of DMA and issued a permanent injunction against the Department that enjoined the enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements.5 The District Court concluded that Colorado's notice and reporting requirements discriminated against and placed undue burdens on interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause. The Department appealed the District Court's decision.

Notice and Reporting Requirements

On February 24, 2010, Colorado enacted legislation (the Act) that imposes notification and reporting requirements on remote retailers making Colorado sales.6 Under the Act and the associated regulations promulgated by the Department, remote retailers that did not collect Colorado sales and use taxes are required to notify customers that they are obligated to self-report and remit use tax on their purchases.7 Remote retailers that did not collect tax are also required to provide Colorado customers with an annual report by January 31 of each year, via first-class mail, detailing a customer's purchases in the previous year and notifying the customer that the retailer was required to report the customer's name and amount of purchases to the Department.8 Finally, remote retailers that did not collect tax are also required to report to the Department, the name, billing address, shipping address and total amount of purchases made by Colorado customers by March 1 of each year.9 Under the state's regulations, however, certain de minimis retailers, or retailers with de minimis purchasers, are not subject to these requirements.10

No Federal Jurisdiction under Tax Injunction Act

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the TIA precludes federal jurisdiction over DMA's claims. The TIA provides that "district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State."11 Because the Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, the Court did not consider the constitutionality of Colorado's notice and reporting requirements.

DMA Sought to Restrain Collection of State Tax

In holding that the TIA prohibited federal jurisdiction, the Court first considered whether DMA's action sought to "enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law." DMA unsuccessfully argued that the TIA did not preclude federal jurisdiction in this case because DMA: (i) was not a taxpayer seeking to avoid a tax; and (ii) challenged notice and reporting requirements rather than a tax assessment.

DMA argued that the TIA did not apply because it was not a taxpayer seeking to avoid state taxes. In support of its argument, DMA relied on a case, Hibbs v. Winn,12 in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the TIA is triggered when "state taxpayers seek federal-court orders enabling them to avoid paying state taxes." In Hibbs, the plaintiffs were Arizona taxpayers who brought an Establishment Clause challenge in federal court to a state tax credit for contributions to "school tuition organizations." The plaintiffs did not challenge a tax imposed on them, but sought to invalidate a tax credit. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the TIA did not bar this type of lawsuit. Relying on its precedent interpreting Hibbs, the Court of Appeals disagreed that the TIA applies only when taxpayers seek to avoid a state tax in federal court. For example, in Hill v. Kemp,13 the Court of Appeals applied the TIA outside the context of a taxpayer seeking to avoid taxes. According to the Court, the key question is whether the plaintiff's lawsuit seeks to prevent "the State from exercising its sovereign power to collect . . . revenues."14 This interpretation follows the U.S. Supreme Court's instruction in Hibbs that the primary purposes of the TIA is to "shield[] state tax collections from federal-court restraints."15

In further support of its argument that the TIA did not apply, DMA contended that it sought to avoid notice and reporting obligations, not a tax. According to DMA, the fact that the obligations related to use tax owed by Colorado consumers did not bring the case under the TIA as a suit seeking to enjoin the collection of a state tax. The Court rejected this argument because the TIA also prohibits federal lawsuits that would restrain the collection of a state tax. Therefore, the issue was whether DMA's challenge of Colorado's notice and reporting requirements would restrain Colorado's tax collection. The Court determined that DMA's lawsuit seeking to enjoin state laws enacted to ensure compliance with and increase use tax collection would restrain tax collection. Although DMA did not directly challenge a tax, it contested the way Colorado wanted to collect use tax. Thus, the lawsuit's potential to restrain tax collection triggered the jurisdictional bar.

The Court of Appeals rejected DMA's argument that the Court's interpretation of the TIA was overly broad. After considering some cases cited by DMA,16 the Court explained that the revenue-generating, non-punitive purpose of Colorado's notice and reporting requirements placed them squarely within the TIA's protection.

DMA Has Plain, Speedy and Efficient Remedy in Colorado

The Court determined that DMA's lawsuit also satisfied the second prong of the test within the TIA because DMA had a "plain, speeding and efficient remedy . . . in the courts of [Colorado]." This part of the TIA requires the Court to be convinced that Colorado law provides DMA with sufficient process to challenge the notice and reporting statute. The Court explained that Colorado state courts can and do grant relief in cases challenging the constitutionality of tax statutes, but acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court suggested in Hibbs that the TIA does not refer to general process in state court. Although the Hibbs case did not specifically address the TIA's "plain, speedy and efficient remedy" language, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that the statutory language may contemplate something more than the general availability of a remedy to "the universe of plaintiffs who sue the State."17 In Hibbs, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the statute requires a "remedy tailormade for taxpayers."18

The Court of Appeals considered whether Colorado's tax laws provide a specific remedy for remote retailers such as DMA. Specifically, the Court examined whether DMA could challenge Colorado's statute outside of filing an action in state court for injunctive or declaratory relief. DMA argued that the law forces remote retailers to choose between following the notice and reporting requirements or remitting sales tax to the Department. The Court explained that a remote retailer could remit sales tax and then seek a refund. In pursuing the refund, the remote retailer could make arguments that the statute violates the Commerce Clause. Also, a remote retailer could challenge any penalties it incurs for failing to comply with the notice and reporting requirements. Therefore, the Court was "satisfied that Colorado provides avenues for remote sellers to challenge the scheme allegedly forcing them to choose between collecting sales tax and complying with the notice and reporting requirements." Colorado's administrative remedies provide for hearings and appeals to state court, as well as ultimate review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Commentary

This is a significant decision for taxpayers considering a constitutional challenge of state tax statutes. Taxpayers with state tax challenges have a greater probability of success in federal courts than state courts. With the release of this taxpayer-adverse decision, the Tenth Circuit's broad reading of the TIA may limit taxpayers' ability to have federal courts consider state tax issues and may prevent some taxpayers from seeking relief in federal court. DMA may request a reconsideration of the case by the Tenth Circuit sitting en banc, appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, or potentially proceed with the challenge in state court once the District Court dismisses the case.

This decision also is significant because it orders the District Court to dissolve its permanent injunction that enjoined the Department from enforcing Colorado's extensive sales and use tax notice and reporting requirements for remote sellers. Thus, without considering the substance of DMA's constitutional arguments, the Court of Appeals has vacated the District Court's decision that Colorado's statute violated the Commerce Clause. While DMA's constitutional arguments may be meritorious, given that Colorado is trying to require remote sellers that do not have a collection and remittance requirement to comply with the notice and reporting requirements, DMA may not get the chance to substantively argue its case.

Colorado took the lead in enacting controversial notice and reporting requirements for remote retailers. Since Colorado enacted its statute, several other states have likewise enacted notice requirements. For example, earlier this year, Kentucky enacted legislation requiring remote retailers to provide notice to purchasers that they must report and pay tax directly to the Kentucky Department of Revenue on purchases of nonexempt personal property.19 Moreover, Oklahoma,20 South Dakota21 and Vermont22 have enacted remote seller notification requirements as well. The requirements enacted by other states, however, are not nearly as extensive as Colorado's requirements. The other states only require that the remote seller notify the customer of its obligation to pay use tax. Unlike Colorado, they do not require an annual purchase summary and customer information report. The District Court's decision holding that Colorado's notification and reporting requirements were unconstitutional may have discouraged other states from enacting similar requirements while the injunction was in effect. The fact that this decision has been vacated may encourage other states to enact notification and reporting requirements.

Footnotes

1 Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, No. 12-1175, Aug. 20, 2013. Note that the defendant in this litigation originally was Roxy Huber, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue when this litigation commenced. The current Executive Director, Barbara Brohl, was substituted as the defendant.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

3 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8.

4 Direct Marketing Association v. Huber, U.S. District Court, D. Colorado, No. 10-cv-01546-REB-CBS, Jan. 26, 2011 (Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction).

5 Direct Marketing Association v. Huber, U.S. District Court, D. Colorado, No. 10-cv-01546-REB-CBS, March 30, 2012.

6 H.B. 10-1193, Laws 2010, which is now codified at COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-21-112(3.5).

7 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-21-112(3.5)(c); 1 COLO. CODE REGS. § 39-21-112.3.5(2)(b).

8 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(I)(A), (B).

9 COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(II).

10 According to the state's emergency regulations, a retailer is presumed to be de minimis if it made less than $100,000 in total gross sales in Colorado in the prior calendar year and reasonably expects total gross sales in Colorado in the current year to be less than that amount. 1 COLO. CODE REGS. § 39-21-112.3.5(1)(a). Moreover, the summary of annual purchases is required to be delivered only to customers who spend over $500 in the calendar year with a particular retailer. 1 COLO. CODE REGS. § 39-21-112.3.5(3)(c).

11 28 U.S.C. § 1341.

12 542 U.S. 88 (2004).

13 478 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2007).

14 Id.

15 542 U.S. 88, 104 (2004).

16 The Court considered United Parcel Service Inc. v. Flores-Galarza, 318 F.3d 323 (1st Cir. 2003), and Wells v. Malloy, 510 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1975). Also, the Court considered a recent case, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, No. 12-6294, June 27, 2013.

17 542 U.S. 88, 107 (2004).

18 Id.

19 Ch. 119 (H.B. 440), Laws 2013, amending KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 139.450.

20 OKLA. STAT. tit. 68, § 1406.1.

21 S.B. 146, Laws 2011.

22 VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 32, § 9783.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions