Podcasts about wayfair inc

Wayfair Inc., Q3 2023 Earnings Call, Nov 01, 2023

Wayfair Inc., Q2 2023 Earnings Call, Aug 03, 2023

Wayfair Inc., Q3 2021 Earnings Call, Nov 04, 2021

Wayfair Inc., Q2 2021 Earnings Call, Aug 05, 2021

Wayfair Inc., Q1 2021 Earnings Call, May 06, 2021

Wayfair Inc. - Q3 2020 Earnings Call - Nov 03, 2020

Tax Notes legal reporter Jennifer McLoughlin interviews Richard Cram, director of the Multistate Tax Commission’s National Nexus Program, on the state of the sales tax landscape two years after the Supreme Court ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. McLoughlin moderates a discussion between Bradley Scott, finance director of the jewelry component wholesaler Halstead Bead Inc., and Scott Peterson, vice president of U.S. tax policy and government relations at Avalara Inc.For additional coverage, read these articles in Tax Notes:Smaller Sellers Searching for Relief in Post-Wayfair WorldSmaller Businesses Struggle Most With Post-Wayfair ComplianceStates Could Lower Nexus Thresholds to Address Revenue ShortfallsStates Extend Sales Tax Deadlines, May Pass More Marketplace BillsSmall Businesses Ask Congress to Act on Remote Seller LawsMTC Finalizes 2019 White Paper on Wayfair Implementation Issues***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producers: Jasper B. Smith, Faye McCrayShowrunner: Paige JonesAudio Engineers: Derek Squires, Jordan ParrishGuest Relations: Nicole White

State and local tax laws got shaken up in 2018 when the Supreme Court ruled that states may charge taxes on purchases from out-of-state sellers, even if the seller does not maintain a physical presence in the taxing state. This legislation completely reshaped the environment for determining a remote seller’s obligation to collect sales tax, resulting in all sellers of tangible goods needing to evaluate where they may be obligated to collect and remit sales tax. Listen on as Carr, Riggs & Ingram Partners Mac Smith and Kris Hoffman discuss the latest in the state and local tax landscape in the aftermath of this monumental decision.

State and local tax laws got shaken up in 2018 when the Supreme Court ruled that states may charge taxes on purchases from out-of-state sellers, even if the seller does not maintain a physical presence in the taxing state. This legislation completely reshaped the environment for determining a remote seller’s obligation to collect sales tax, resulting in all sellers of tangible goods needing to evaluate where they may be obligated to collect and remit sales tax. Listen on as Carr, Riggs & Ingram Partners Mac Smith and Kris Hoffman discuss the latest in the state and local tax landscape in the aftermath of this monumental decision.

Tax Notes Today State reporter Paige Jones discusses the developments in states since the U.S. Supreme Court's June 21, 2018, decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc.See the Tax Notes Nexus Tracker and these articles for more coverage:One Year Later: Experts Discuss Aftermath, Future Impact of WayfairNo New Streamlined Member States a Year After WayfairNCSL SALT Task Force Contemplates Its Future Post-WayfairRemote Sellers Seeking Relief as States Shift to Marketplace LawsNew Hampshire Wages War Against Wayfair

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * Webcast URL: https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/south-dakota-v-wayfair-decision/ In its South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. decision, the Supreme Court abandoned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's physical presence nexus standard, giving states broadened ability to collect tax from online sellers. To settle the remaining South Dakota issues, South Dakota and Wayfair Inc., et al., entered into an agreement wherein the latter will have to comply with the former's remote seller law. The South Dakota ruling is expected to have sweeping implications on online retailing and modern e-commerce. Companies need to keep themselves abreast of the recent developments in sales tax collection, particularly in light of South Dakota, to ensure compliance and avoid litigation. Listen as a panel of distinguished professionals organized by The Knowledge Group provide the audience with the latest sales tax issues in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Speakers, among other things, will discuss what there is to know in the evolving sales tax landscape. For anymore information please click on the webcast url at the top of this description.

Paige Jones talks to Jim Ford of Global Tax Management about how retailers are preparing to collect and remit sales and use taxes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc.

Matthew Schaefer, a Partner at the law firm Brann Isaacson, has focused for nearly 20 years on state tax matters and contested proceedings before courts and administrative tribunals.  He was co-counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Respondents in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., 135 S.Ct. 2080 (2018) and for the Petitioner in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, 135 S.Ct. 1124 (2015).  Matthew advises numerous e-commerce vendors, multi-channel merchants, and trade associations, and has represented the challengers in nearly every leading court case testing the constitutionality of state “economic presence” laws that impose burdensome tax and regulatory obligations on remote sellers.Matt is a co-author of ‘Eyes on eCom Law,' a blog that reports on legal developments of interest to direct marketers and online sellers.Brann Isaacson is unique among its peers—a boutique law firm grounded in Maine that represents over 100 large and small online and multichannel companies across the country. The firm is general counsel to L.L. Bean, one of the most prominent and admired retailers in the industry. Today, we advise many of the companies in the Internet Retailer's Top 500 Guide, as well as many small companies that hope someday to be included in that list.Brann Isaacson is based in Lewiston, Maine which is approx. 40 miles north of Portland and 135 miles north of Boston.  It was in Lewiston where Muhammad Ali had his first title defense, knocking out Sonny Liston in the infamous phantom knockout.

Lynn Nichols Federal Tax Update Podcast July 16, 2018, edition   We are back after a short hiatus! Listen as Lynn Nichols provides commentary on 8 Items pertaining to current developments in U.S. tax law. This week’s topics include: OUR PROGRAM THIS WEEK INCLUDES . . . . . .   Termination of S Corp Election Inadvertent The IRS ruled that a company will be treated as continuing to be an S corporation from the date its subchapter S election was inadvertently terminated when a trust became an ineligible shareholder, provided some conditions are met. [LTR 201824003; 10/27/2017, rel. 6/15/2018] (FIVE LIKE THIS IN SAME WEEK ! ! !) IRS Scraps Leveraged Partnership Rules, Keeps Bottom-Dollar Ban The IRS is reverting to old rules on leveraged partnerships in response to an executive order calling for the removal of burdensome regulations, but bottom-dollar guarantees didn’t make the cut. [Tax Notes Today; June 19,2018, article by Eric Yauch] IRS Proposed Disguised Sales Regs Would Reinstate Prior Regs The IRS has published proposed regulations on the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sales, adding that if finalized, the proposed regs would reinstate prior final regs on allocations of excess nonrecourse liabilities of a partnership.  [REG-131186-17; 83 F.R. 28397-28401; 6/19/2018]   Medical Marijuana Business Can't Claim Deduction for Wages The Tax Court held that deductions for wages a couple received from their medical marijuana S corporation weren’t attributable to cost of goods sold and are disallowed under section 280E as attributable to trafficking a controlled substance, rejecting the couple’s claim that denial of the deduction is discriminatory. [Loughman, Jesse M.; No. 21464-15; T.C. Memo. 2018-85, 6/18/2018]   Decedent Held Rights to Cash Surrender Value of Life Insurance The Tax Court refused to hold that sections 2036 and 2038 are inapplicable in valuing a decedent’s interests in three split-dollar life insurance agreements to the cash surrender value at the date of death because the bona fide sale exception was not satisfied and held that summary judgment on inapplicability of section 2703 was inappropriate. [Cahill, Estate of Richard F.; No. 10451-16; T.C. Memo 2018-84, 6/18/2018]   Microcaptive Insurer Case Leaves Open Questions The Tax Court granted the IRS another victory June 18, adding to the agency’s arsenal for combating abusive captive insurance arrangements, but the opinion failed to offer additional guidance for taxpayers.  [Tax Notes Today; 6/20/2018, Article by Emily Foster]   Property Manager Was Employee; Company Hit With Employment Taxes The Tax Court held that the property manager for a company that operated an apartment complex was an employee and not an independent contractor and held the company liable for employment taxes, additions to tax, and penalties; the court held that the company wasn’t entitled to relief under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. [Hampton Software Development LLC; No. 30231-13L; T.C. Memo. 2018-87, 6/19/2018]   Fraudulent Filer Can’t Avoid Penalties With Amended Returns   The Tax Court held that an individual who admitted to filing fraudulent returns but who later filed amended returns reporting additional income was still liable for the penalties, finding that he could not avoid fraud penalties by filing amended returns because an amended return doesn’t purge the original fraudulent filing or fraudulent intent. [Gaskin, Gary et al. v.; No. 7475-17; T.C. Memo. 2018-89; 6/20/2018]   S. Supreme Court Overturns Quill, Freeing States to Tax Online Sales The U.S. Supreme Court held June 21 in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. that the physical presence standard in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota is "unsound and incorrect," freeing states to require tax collection on remote sales. [Tax Notes Today; 6/22/2018, Article by Jad Chamseddine]     [South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc.; No. 17–494]

The Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in that state to collect and revoke taxes for goods sold or shipped into the state. The Court affirmed this holding in 1992 and 2015. However, in 2015, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion asking whether the Court should continue following precedent in light of additional dormant Commerce Clause cases and the recent significant technological and social changes that affect interstate commerce.In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval. Consistent with this doctrine, in 1967, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in that state to collect and revoke taxes for goods sold or shipped into the state. The Court affirmed this holding in 1992 and 2015. However, in 2015, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion asking whether the Court should continue following precedent in light of additional dormant Commerce Clause cases and the recent significant technological and social changes that affect interstate commerce.In 2016, the South Dakota Legislature passed a law requiring sellers of “tangible personal property” who do not have a physical presence in the state to remit sales tax according to the same procedures as sellers who do have a physical presence. The act limited the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota over $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.The legislation's stated purpose was to help the state maintain revenue in the face of growing internet sales and a decrease in sales tax collections.Following the passage of the law, South Dakota sued many retailers who failed to comply. The state courts of South Dakota ruled for the retailers, considering themselves “duty bound to follow” the previous Supreme Court rulings. On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Jad Chamseddine talks to David Stewart about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Quill in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. and the implications of that ruling for state tax collection on remote sales.

A case in which the Court overruled Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, holding that states may require sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax for goods sold within the state.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. | 04/17/18 | Docket #: 17-494

While it may feel like we've covered all angles of tax reform in the last few episode of unsuitable, we're not done yet! Sure, we've hit the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from a federal perspective – but what happens when we look at the implications of the legislation at the state level? Joe Popp, director of Rea's SALT team and a frequent flyer on the podcast, joins us to discuss the various considerations states are grappling with as a result of tax reform. And, while we're on the topic of state and local taxes, Joe is going to talk about a few other nexus concerns business owners will be left to contend with as the year continues to unfold. 2018 is the Year of SALT SALT, if you're not aware, stands for State and Local Tax. It's a broad field, but it's going to be significant this year as states shift their policies in response to federal tax reform. There will be some fun changes for businesses (like the New York or California response to itemized deduction limitations) – but, mostly, it's going to be complicated (or, if you're a SALT specialist, a lot of fun). If you are a business owner who operates in the United States, you will be interested in these other topics discussed in this episode: New rules will look at client sales by state, changing the way clients approach state taxation. What the proposed “Amazon Laws” in many states are, and how they will affect businesses using the Fulfillment by Amazon service. How South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc is challenging the court's “physical presence” nexus rule, and how the decision (due in June) will impact businesses. If you liked this episode of unsuitable on Rea Radio, let us know by hitting the like button or by sharing it with your followers on social media. You can also use #ReaRadio to join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter, and you can watch the podcast in action on the Rea & Associates YouTube channel. We've also included access to additional resources on our website at www.reacpa.com.