|Det. No. 16-0031, 38 WTD 001 (2019)||38WTD001.pdf||
A provider of electronic payment processing solutions for eCommerce merchants protests the attribution method employed by the Department’s Audit Division to determine Taxpayer’s taxable income. . . . Taxpayer argues that, for the period beginning June 1, 2010, the attribution method used should have been based on the merchant billing address. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 16-0122, 38 WTD 008 (2019)||38WTD008.pdf||
A medical marijuana management company protests the Department’s assessment of retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax arguing that it is a management company providing management services to a collective garden only, and that neither party is making retail sales. It also argues that even if it is making retail sales, those sales are exempt either as sales of drugs pursuant to a prescription or sales of medicines of a botanical origin. We deny the petition.
|Det. No. 16-0340, 38 WTD 017 (2019)||38WTD017.pdf||
Taxpayer was informed that its sales of nutritional supplements to its clients are subject to retail sales tax and retailing B&O tax. We affirm the Tax Rulings issued to Taxpayer on November 2 and 18, 2015 in their entirety.
|Det. No. 17-0190, 38 WTD 023 (2019)||38_WTD_023.pdf||
A manufacturer of precision hard metal and titanium parts petitions for a correction of use tax assessed on grinding machines it purchased that it uses to sharpen tools for customers, to sharpen its own tools, and to manufacture new tools. It asserts that the purchased machinery qualifies for the M&E exemption. We deny the petition.