Massachusetts Tax Developments - A Reed Smith Quarterly Update (3rd Quarter 2013)

by Reed Smith

Welcome to the Reed Smith Massachusetts State Tax Quarterly Update for the 3rd Quarter of 2013. This update includes coverage of the repeal of the short-lived software services tax and pending litigation on other software-related services, as well as a number of corporate excise tax developments, including: (1) newly enacted apportionment legislation, which imposes market sourcing for many types of receipts and institutes a throwout rule; (2) the Department’s attempt to narrow the application of the operational approach to cost of performance sourcing; and (3) pending cases at the Appellate Tax Board involving transfer pricing, embedded royalties, and interest/royalty add-back.

Sales and Use Tax

Massachusetts revokes software services tax; additional taxpayers challenge whether SaaS, ASP and cloud computing services are subject to sales tax

The Massachusetts Legislature and Governor Patrick responded to overwhelming opposition and revoked the software services tax, retroactive to the date it was imposed; refund headache ahead for vendors that have been collecting the tax.

Less than two months after it was enacted, Governor Patrick signed a law repealing Massachusetts’ controversial software services tax, retroactive to its intended effective date.

While Massachusetts businesses should be happy to see the unpopular tax repealed, one lingering headache will remain for some vendors—customer refunds. The tax was repealed before any vendor was required to remit collected tax on sales of software services to the Department of Revenue (the "Department"), but many vendors seeking to comply with the law during the two months it was in effect did collect the tax from their customers. Those vendors are now required to make "reasonable efforts" to return the collected tax to their customers.1

While the "software services tax" is no more, Massachusetts still attempts to tax many software-related services. The Department reclassifies many purchases of software as a service ("SaaS") and cloud computing services as purchases of "software" subject to sales and use tax. Taxpayers continue to challenge this position, as well as the Department’s authority to tax sales of access to software located outside of Massachusetts.

In a recent teleseminar, we discussed pending litigation at the Appellate Tax Board in which a vendor is challenging the Department’s assessment of tax on the vendor’s SaaS offering. (If you were unable to attend our teleseminar, click here for the slide deck and audio recording.)

Another quarter brings another challenge to the Department’s expansive view of what constitutes taxable computer software. This time, in a case pending at the Appellate Tax Board, a vendor is challenging the Department’s view—expressed in a recent letter ruling2—that when (1) a vendor sells access to software hosted on the vendor’s servers and (2) that software permits purchasers (or third parties) to remotely access their (the purchaser’s) own computers; then the sale of access to the vendor’s software constitutes a sale of software subject to tax in Massachusetts.

In the pending case, the vendor maintains control of all software on its own servers, with the exception of a free applet that is sometimes transferred to the customer. Purchasers access the vendor’s software over the Internet and use the software as a conduit to connect to their own computers in other locations.

As in other appeals involving sales tax imposed on remotely accessed software, the vendor is arguing (1) that sales of remote access to software is not taxable in Massachusetts because a taxable transfer of software has not occurred; and (2) that the object of the transaction is a non-taxable service.


  • With yet another appeal filed on this issue, vendors and purchasers of remotely accessed software, as well SaaS, ASP, and cloud computing services, should keep a close eye on these cases as they develop. If a decision were issued in the vendor’s favor in any of these pending cases, it could call into question much of the Department’s guidance regarding the taxability of remotely accessed software, as well as mixed software and service transactions.
  • Purchasers that have paid Massachusetts sales tax on remotely accessed software, as well as on SaaS, ASP, or cloud computing services with similar fact patterns, should consider working with their vendors to file protective refund claims.

For more information and updates on the pending cases discussed above, contact Michael Jacobs at

Corporate Tax

Legislature Enacts Market Sourcing and Throwout – Beginning in 2014

Market sourcing is coming to Massachusetts in 2014. In addition, as part of the switch to market sourcing, Massachusetts has adopted a throwout rule for certain sales.

Massachusetts enacted legislation replacing its current cost of performance sourcing regime for sales other than sales of tangible personal property, with a market-based sourcing rule for tax years starting on or after January 1, 2014. The legislation also implements a throwout rule for sales other than sales of tangible personal property in situations where the taxpayer is not taxable in the state to which the sale is assigned, or if the state to which the sale is assigned cannot be determined or reasonably approximated.3

In August, Reed Smith hosted a teleseminar on these changes as well as issues remaining under the cost of performance approach. If you were unable to attend, click here for the slide deck and audio.

  • Guidance forthcoming: The Department is currently working on regulations interpreting the new statute. While we expect a draft to be released in early 2014 for public comments, taxpayers with specific issues may want to consider reaching out to the Department now. The Department typically is willing to receive and consider taxpayer comments throughout the regulation drafting process.
  • Licenses to Software Sourced to Server Location: The new sourcing rules are unambiguous regarding the treatment of receipts from licenses to use tangible personal property—the sale is sourced to the location of the property. The Department’s existing regulations state that software is considered tangible personal property for income tax purposes.4 As a result, the application of the new market sourcing rules to receipts from software licenses may produce surprising results. For example, a vendor that sells a license to use software hosted on the vendor’s server and accessed remotely by the taxpayer would presumably source the receipts from that license to the location of the vendor’s server. At the same time, if a vendor sells a license to use software to a customer and the software is downloaded onto the customer’s server, and the software is then remotely accessed by the customer’s employees throughout the country, then the receipts from the license should be sourced to the location of the customer’s server, regardless of the location of the customer’s employees who access the software.

The Department formalizes its policy to narrowly apply the Appellate Tax Board decision in AT&T to other cost of performance appeals

On August 20, the Department issued Technical Information Release 13-12, formally announcing what had already been clear from its litigation posture in numerous other cases: the Department views the taxpayer victory in AT&T,5 which upheld the use of an operational approach to cost of performance sourcing, as limited to the specific facts presented by AT&T. In other words, the Department will continue to challenge taxpayer attempts to apply an operational approach to source receipts outside of Massachusetts on an "all or nothing basis."

Despite the Department’s attempts to limit the effect of the AT&T decision, taxpayers continue to bring appeals applying both the operational and transactional approaches to source receipts from sales other than sales of tangible personal property. More information regarding pending and recently resolved cost of performance cases is available in our last Quarterly Update, as well as our recent teleseminar on the subject of sales factor sourcing in Massachusetts.

Can Department change the add-back exception computation without a change in statute?

In 2006, without any statutory change, the Department changed the form taxpayers use to compute the interest add-back exception. The method used to compute the exception on the revised form was less taxpayer friendly than on the prior version of the form. Should taxpayers still be permitted to use the method outlined on the prior version of the form?

In 2006, three years after the enactment of the related-party interest add-back provision, the Department changed the portion of Schedule ABI used to calculate the partial interest add-back exception for payments to related members subject to tax on the interest income ("Exception #2") in a way that significantly reduced the available exception for many taxpayers. The change produced particularly harsh results if the affiliated entity receiving the interest payment was subject to tax in Massachusetts.6 To illustrate the potential effect, here’s an example of a hypothetical taxpayer’s interest add-back exception computation before and after the Department changed the form:7


Prior to 2006 


 Taxpayer interest paid to Affiliate A



 Taxpayer’s Massachusetts apportionment %



 Affiliate A’s Massachusetts apportionment %



 Affiliate A’s apportionment % in combined/unitary states



 Massachusetts tax rate for Taxpayer and Affiliate A



 Taxpayer interest add-back exception per schedule ABI "Exception #2"



This change to Schedule ABI "Exception #2" was made in the absence of any change to the statute governing the interest add-back. The Department promulgated regulations in 2006 regarding the interest add-back exceptions. However, these regulations do not, on their face, differ materially from the Department’s guidance in Technical Information Release 03-19, issued near the time the interest add-back was enacted. This raises the question: shouldn’t the prior, taxpayer friendly, method for computing Exception #2 still be valid?

Given the lack of statutory or explicit changes to the Department’s published interpretations of the statute, we see no reason why taxpayers should be prevented from computing their exception under the more favorable formula. Since the Department instructs its auditors to refer to TIR 03-19 to determine whether a taxpayer is eligible for the interest add-back exception, it is not clear why the forms issued at the same time as that guidance should not still be applicable as well.8 Furthermore, taxpayers that would benefit from the prior formula should keep their eye on pending litigation involving a similar change to Schedule ABIE (for royalty add-back exceptions), where a taxpayer is alleging that there was no legal basis for the Department’s 2006 charges to the Schedule.


  • Potential Audit Offset (especially 2006 – 2008): With the adoption of unitary combined reporting in 2009, the interest expense add-back provision affects fewer taxpayers than it did previously. However, any taxpayer under audit for tax years from 2006 - 2008 that did not claim the full add-back exception should consider whether they would benefit from recomputing their exception under the prior "Exception #2" method. If the prior method results in an increased exception to add-back, the taxpayer should consider (1) requesting that the auditor apply that method under add-back Exception #3 (exception based on a supporting statement), pointing the auditor to the audit manual citing to TIR 03-19 for support that the method is still valid; and (2) raising this issue in any assessment appeal while litigation regarding the 2006 changes is pending.

Taxpayers continue to challenge Department of Revenue embedded royalty/transfer pricing adjustments

Department auditors continue to deny business expense deductions for the full amount of payments made to affiliated taxpayers. Pending cases challenge the Department’s authority to disallow deductions for intercompany payments supported by third-party transfer pricing studies; the Department’s attempts to reclassify intercompany payments as embedded royalties are also under challenge.

The Department continues to challenge taxpayer deductions for payments to affiliated entities by disregarding the taxpayer’s transfer pricing study and/or reclassifying a portion of the payment as an "embedded royalty." Of course, Department auditors are also issuing assessments based on the theory that an affiliate should have charged more for the sale of goods to an affiliate. In pending or recently resolved cases, the Department has been arguing for:

  • The reclassification of payments made by a distribution company for purchases of products from its affiliate as embedded royalties;
  • The disallowance of any deduction for amounts paid to an affiliate for various services;
  • The increase of a taxpayer’s net income from sales of pharmaceuticals to an affiliated retailer, using general industry financial ratios as the basis for the increase; and
  • the increase of a taxpayer’s net income from sales of various retail products to affiliates despite two third-party transfer pricing studies supporting taxpayer’s sales price.


  • Department’s methodology: Thus far, the Department appears to be making transfer pricing adjustments on a case-by-case basis, without relying on any consistent method. As cases proceed through the appeal process, the Department will likely be required to put into writing standards and justifications for its adjustments. Taxpayers should keep a close eye on briefs and other Department filings in which the Department sets forth standards for determining fair intercompany pricing. For example, briefs in pending cases in which the Department is arguing that intercompany prices should have been higher may include language that proves useful for taxpayers challenging adjustments in which the Department is reducing an expense deduction for a payment to an affiliate.
  • Embedded royalties—transfer pricing by another name: Taxpayers facing assessments denying a portion of the deduction for payments to an affiliate on the basis that the payment included an "embedded royalty" should consider whether the Department’s adjustments met the transfer pricing adjustment standards of I.R.C. § 482. Several taxpayers have pending appeals challenging "embedded royalty" adjustments on the basis that they are, in fact, transfer pricing adjustments, and the auditor failed to apply I.R.C. § 482 standards in making the adjustments.

For updates on these and other embedded royalty/transfer pricing cases, contact Michael Jacobs at

The Appellate Tax Board rules against another taxpayer on treatment of intercompany debt from deferred subscription agreements; Findings of Fact and Report yet to be released

The Appellate Tax Board has issued another decision denying true debt treatment for an intercompany obligation. In National Grid Holdings, the board upheld assessments denying the taxpayer’s treatment of deferred subscription arrangements ("DSAs") as true debt, and upholding the Department’s assessment that included the DSAs in the net-worth tax base of the issuing entities, and denying interest deductions for payments made under the DSA by another affiliate.9 More detail on the decision in National Grid Holdings is available in our previous alert on the decision.

If you have questions about any of the items discussed in this update, please contact the authors, or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you usually work.  For more information, visit

  1. H.B. 3662.
  2. Letter Ruling 12-10 (September 25, 2012).
  3. Ch. 46, Acts of 2013.
  4. See 830 CMR 63.38.1(9)(e).
  5. AT&T Corp. v. Commissioner, Mass. Appellate Tax Board, Docket No. C293831 (June 8, 2011) aff’d Mass. App. Ct., Docket No. 11-P-1462 (July 13, 2012).
  6. Compare Schedule ABI, Exceptions to the Add Back of Interest Expenses, "Exception 2" version 2005 and 2006.
  7. Example assumes that the net income for the tax year of the affiliate receiving the interest payment is greater than the interest income it receives from Taxpayer and that affiliate receiving the interest payment does not receive interest from other affiliated entities.
  8. See Auditing Net Income—Step #9, Massachusetts Field Audit Manual (Rev. 2009).
  9. National Grid Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner, Appellate Tax Board Docket Nos. C292287-89, (Decision issued March 28, 2013, Findings of Fact and Report forthcoming).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Reed Smith | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Reed Smith

Reed Smith on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.