South Carolina Tax Litigation Update: First Quarter 2018

by McNair Law Firm, P.A.
Contact

There were several notable state tax opinions issued by the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court in the 1st quarter of 2018.  A number of tax cases are also pending before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.  Administrative Law Court property tax opinions are not addressed in this update.

South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions

  • Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a/ The Home Depot v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Docket No. 15-ALJ-17-0253-CC (March 12, 2018).

DOR assessed additional sales tax after concluding Home Depot improperly remitted use tax based upon its cost for materials used in its install contracts rather than remitting sales tax based on the retail selling price of the materials used in its install contracts.  Home Depot would charge customers the retail sales price for materials used in install contracts, but remitted use tax based on its cost of the materials instead of collecting sales tax on the retail sales price.  Home Depot argued it was a contractor when it sold install contracts to customers and properly remitted use tax based on its cost of materials.  DOR argued Home Depot was acting as a retailer and should have collected sales tax on the retail sales price of the materials.  The case was heard before Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph King Anderson, III.  Judge Anderson’s opinion found Home Depot was acting as a retailer and should have collected sales tax on the retail sales price of materials, not Home Depot’s wholesale cost.  A notice of appeal was filed on April 10, 2018.

Observations:  Taxpayers who operate as both a contractor and a retailer should carefully review this opinion and its potential impact.  Taxpayers should consider restructuring their activities to segregate their retail and contractor operations, or at least separately account for these activities, to avoid DOR arguments that the contractor operations should be taxed as a retail business.

  • Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Docket No. 17-ALJ-17-0414-CC (February 6, 2018)

DOR issued a proposed assessment of about $2,700,000 to Dollar Tree.  Dollar Tree failed to protest the proposed assessment within the applicable 90 day protest period and DOR then assessed the liability.  Dollar Tree filed a contested case hearing request with the South Carolina Administrative Law Court approximately five months after the proposed assessment was issued, asking the ALC to remove the assessment and remand the matter to SCDOR.  The ALC can remove an assessment for good cause and remand the matter to DOR.  Dollar Tree argued the proposed assessment was issued to a junior, inexperienced employee who graduated college in 2016.  The ALC determined good cause was not present, noting subsequent interactions with the Department and Dollar Tree’s designation of the employee as the point of contact.  The ALC observed that Dollar Tree could pay the assessment, file a refund claim, and then request a hearing before the ALC if the refund claim was denied.

Observations:  The ALC has issued a number of opinions which show that “good cause” for missing the 90 day protest period is a high standard that may be difficult to meet.  In most instances, if the 90-day protest period is missed, the only remedy may be to pay the tax at issue and file a refund claim.    For a refund claim to be filed, and where multiple tax periods are involved in a DOR audit, DOR may argue that the taxes (and all penalties and interest) must be first paid for each and every tax period in an audit; however, the administrative position of DOR in this regard may not be correct and a taxpayer should be able to pay taxes (and any penalties and interest) for any one tax period and file a claim for refund.  Each tax period should be a separate cause of action for refund purposes.

  • Beltram v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Docket No. 13-ALJ-17-0244-CC (January 12, 2018)

This is a responsible party case that is on appeal to the Court of Appeals.  The taxpayer appealed a decision of the ALC but failed to pay the tax determined to be due in the ALC’s decision.  The Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the ALC to determine the amount of taxes the taxpayer was required to pay.  The taxpayer argued it was the amount shown on filed tax liens and that interest should not be included.  The ALC determined the full tax liability for the periods at issue, and interest, had to be paid.

Observations:  Briefs have now been filed with the Court of Appeals and DOR is arguing the taxpayer’s appeal should be dismissed in any event because the statute allowing taxpayers to appeal a decision of the ALC requires the tax to be paid before an appeal is filed.  A taxpayer challenging a liability before the ALC should be prepared to pay the taxes at issue if it contemplates appealing an adverse decision by the ALC.  A Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date an ALC order is entered.  The Court of Appeals may allow the appeal in Beltram to proceed because of unique facts in the case, but taxpayers should assume their appeal from an ALC decision will be dismissed if they do not pay the taxes at issue before filing a Notice of Appeal.

Court of Appeals Decisions

  • Hock RH, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Appellate Case No. 2015-002087 (March 28, 2018)

York Preparatory Academy (YPA) and Hock RH, LLC appealed an order of the Administrative Law Court affirming the South Carolina Department of Revenue’s (DOR’s) denial of a property tax exemption request and refund of 2013 property taxes.  YPA, a public charter school, leased property Hock RH, LLC.  Public charter schools are generally exempt from state and local taxes, including property taxes.  In 2013 a property tax exemption request was filed with DOR.  DOR denied the request because there is no property tax exemption for property leased to a public charter school.  In 2014 the South Carolina general assembly passed legislation to “clarify” that property a public charter school leases is exempt from property taxes.  The ALC determined the legislation did not apply retroactively and denied the 2013 property tax refund claim.  The Court of Appeals determined the legislation clarified the existing law exempting public charter schools from state and local taxes and granted the 2013 refund claim.

Observations:  Determining when legislation clarifies existing law or represents a change in law can be difficult.  Taxpayers who believe DOR has misinterpreted existing law often seek to have clarifying legislation enacted and applied retroactively.  This decision demonstrates that taxpayers can seek clarifying legislation and that our courts will recognize that it applies retroactively.

Supreme Court Decisions

  • Richland County v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Opinion No. 27775 (March 7, 2018)

This was a direct cross-appeal involving the scope of authority of the Department of Revenue (DOR) to enforce various provisions of state law relating to the imposition of a transportation penny tax by Richland County (County) and the County’s expenditure of the funds generated by the tax.  After DOR conducted an audit and informed the County that DOR intended to cease future remittances to the County based on purported misuse of funds, the County filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court, arguing DOR lacked the authority to stop payments and seeking a writ of mandamus compelling DOR to continue remitting revenues.  DOR counterclaimed seeking a declaration that the County’s expenditures were unlawful, an injunction to prohibit future unlawful expenditures, and alternatively, the appointment of a receiver to administer the County’s tax revenues. Following a hearing, the circuit court issued a writ of mandamus compelling DOR to remit the tax revenues, denied DOR’s request for injunctive relief, and also refused to appoint a receiver. Both the County and DOR appealed.  The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court decision in all respects, except for the denial of DOR’s request for injunctive relief.  The South Carolina Supreme Court found DOR was entitled to an injunction requiring the County to expend the funds generated by the penny tax solely on transportation-related projects, and has remanded the case back to the circuit court to determine the scope of an applicable injunction.

Observations:  This is a unique case involving the authority of a state taxing agency over a local county government.  Local governments, who may have believed they were not subject to oversight by SCDOR, will now need to be prepared to respond to audit requests from SCDOR and to explain how their use of funds complies with the applicable laws.  The decision addressed the transportation penny tax specifically, but there are other local taxes collected by DOR that DOR may now seek to monitor.  DOR will need to seek a court order to enforce compliance with applicable tax laws if DOR disagrees with the manner a local government is using tax funds.

Pending Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Tax Cases

  • Home Depot v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2018-000631

This case is discussed in the Administrative Law Court Decisions above.  Initial briefs have not yet been filed.

  • Greenville Hospital v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2017-001548

Greenville Hospital System (GHS) applied for a sales tax exemption.  DOR denied the sales tax exemption and GHS requested a contested case hearing before the ALC.  GHS is a 501(c)(3) hospital/healthcare organization.  Items sold by certain organizations are exempt from sales tax.  The organizations that can qualify for the exemption are identified by cross-reference to property tax exemptions, and include 501(c)(3) organizations.  The cross-references do not include property tax exemptions for political subdivisions or hospitals.  The ALC determined GHS did qualify for the sales tax exemption because it was specifically described in property tax exemptions that were not included in the sales tax cross-reference list.  GHS appealed the ALC decision.  Final briefs have been filed in the appeal.

Observations:  This decision may have a significant impact on certain charitable organizations, and extend beyond sales tax to property tax.  Many charitable organizations are identified by specific class (e.g. churches and hospitals) for property tax exemption purposes, and there is also a broader exemption for charitable organizations generally.  The scope of these exemptions is not identical, with the broader exemption for charitable organizations often providing a more expansive exemption.  If the Court of Appeals determines that GHS does not qualify for the sales tax exemption because it is specifically described in one exemption then any organization that is specifically described in one exemption will need to carefully review the applicability of sales tax exemptions and property tax exemptions to its sales and property.

  • Books-A-Million v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2017-001519

Books-A-Million sells memberships to customers that entitle them to certain discounts and perks.  DOR audited Books-A-Million and determined that it should have collected sales tax on the membership sales.  The ALC determined the sales of the memberships represented value proceeding or accruing from the sale of discounted tangible personal property and assessed sales taxes.  Final briefs have been filed.

Observations:  South Carolina courts have historically applied a “but for” test to determine whether revenues received incident to the sale of tangible personal property are subject to sales tax.  For example, layaway fees have been determined to be subject to sales tax.  If the memberships are determined to be subject to sales tax many organizations that charge for memberships will find themselves in uncertain territory.  For example, a country club that charges membership fees and also sells food, tennis equipment, and golf equipment could be found to be liable for sales tax on the membership fees.

  • Beltram v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2017-000968

The procedural aspects of this case are discussed in the Administrative Law Court Decisions above.  For a substantive discussion of the original ALC opinion, see the prior blog “Personal Tax Liability as a Responsible Party in South Carolina.”  An amended final order was filed on March 17, 2017.  The taxpayer is not contesting that he is a responsible party, but is arguing that his liability is based on the dates of tax liens were filed and that he should receive an increased attorney fee award.

Observations:  This case involves an unusual fact pattern and the issues on appeal are unique.  If the Court of Appeals were to allows attorney fees/discovery sanctions to be imposed on DOR it would represent a welcome opportunity for taxpayers to recover certain litigation costs in limited instances.  With the parties not contesting the substantive aspects of the responsible party determination and notice requirements, the ALC decision remains the most current guidance on South Carolina responsible party determinations.

  • DIRECTV, Inc. v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2018-000211

This is an income tax apportionment case where DOR has sourced DIRECTV’s revenues essentially on a market basis.  The Court of Appeals upheld the ALC’s determination that all revenues from South Carolina customers should be sourced to South Carolina.  DIRECTV argues that it has income producing activities outside of South Carolina and all revenues from South Carolina customers should not be sourced to South Carolina.  DIRECTV has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is pending before the Supreme Court.

Observations:  This decision carries significant implications for multi-state businesses with South Carolina customers.  Most practitioners have not viewed South Carolina as a market basis state but this decision would open the door for DOR to tax more multi-state businesses on a market basis.  This would generally be disadvantageous to multi-state businesses who have significant expenses outside of South Carolina, but could be advantageous to businesses with significant South Carolina expenses and customers outside of South Carolina (these businesses should in fact consider filing protective refund claims).  The South Carolina Supreme Court is not required to hear the case and can simply let the Court of Appeals decision stand.

 

There were several notable state tax opinions issued by the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court in the 1st quarter of 2018.  A number of tax cases are also pending before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.  Administrative Law Court property tax opinions are not addressed in this update.

South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions

  • Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a/ The Home Depot v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Docket No. 15-ALJ-17-0253-CC (March 12, 2018).

DOR assessed additional sales tax after concluding Home Depot improperly remitted use tax based upon its cost for materials used in its install contracts rather than remitting sales tax based on the retail selling price of the materials used in its install contracts.  Home Depot would charge customers the retail sales price for materials used in install contracts, but remitted use tax based on its cost of the materials instead of collecting sales tax on the retail sales price.  Home Depot argued it was a contractor when it sold install contracts to customers and properly remitted use tax based on its cost of materials.  DOR argued Home Depot was acting as a retailer and should have collected sales tax on the retail sales price of the materials.  The case was heard before Chief Administrative Law Judge Ralph King Anderson, III.  Judge Anderson’s opinion found Home Depot was acting as a retailer and should have collected sales tax on the retail sales price of materials, not Home Depot’s wholesale cost.  A notice of appeal was filed on April 10, 2018.

Observations:  Taxpayers who operate as both a contractor and a retailer should carefully review this opinion and its potential impact.  Taxpayers should consider restructuring their activities to segregate their retail and contractor operations, or at least separately account for these activities, to avoid DOR arguments that the contractor operations should be taxed as a retail business.

  • Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Docket No. 17-ALJ-17-0414-CC (February 6, 2018)

DOR issued a proposed assessment of about $2,700,000 to Dollar Tree.  Dollar Tree failed to protest the proposed assessment within the applicable 90 day protest period and DOR then assessed the liability.  Dollar Tree filed a contested case hearing request with the South Carolina Administrative Law Court approximately five months after the proposed assessment was issued, asking the ALC to remove the assessment and remand the matter to SCDOR.  The ALC can remove an assessment for good cause and remand the matter to DOR.  Dollar Tree argued the proposed assessment was issued to a junior, inexperienced employee who graduated college in 2016.  The ALC determined good cause was not present, noting subsequent interactions with the Department and Dollar Tree’s designation of the employee as the point of contact.  The ALC observed that Dollar Tree could pay the assessment, file a refund claim, and then request a hearing before the ALC if the refund claim was denied.

Observations:  The ALC has issued a number of opinions which show that “good cause” for missing the 90 day protest period is a high standard that may be difficult to meet.  In most instances, if the 90-day protest period is missed, the only remedy may be to pay the tax at issue and file a refund claim.    For a refund claim to be filed, and where multiple tax periods are involved in a DOR audit, DOR may argue that the taxes (and all penalties and interest) must be first paid for each and every tax period in an audit; however, the administrative position of DOR in this regard may not be correct and a taxpayer should be able to pay taxes (and any penalties and interest) for any one tax period and file a claim for refund.  Each tax period should be a separate cause of action for refund purposes.

  • Beltram v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Docket No. 13-ALJ-17-0244-CC (January 12, 2018)

This is a responsible party case that is on appeal to the Court of Appeals.  The taxpayer appealed a decision of the ALC but failed to pay the tax determined to be due in the ALC’s decision.  The Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the ALC to determine the amount of taxes the taxpayer was required to pay.  The taxpayer argued it was the amount shown on filed tax liens and that interest should not be included.  The ALC determined the full tax liability for the periods at issue, and interest, had to be paid.

Observations:  Briefs have now been filed with the Court of Appeals and DOR is arguing the taxpayer’s appeal should be dismissed in any event because the statute allowing taxpayers to appeal a decision of the ALC requires the tax to be paid before an appeal is filed.  A taxpayer challenging a liability before the ALC should be prepared to pay the taxes at issue if it contemplates appealing an adverse decision by the ALC.  A Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date an ALC order is entered.  The Court of Appeals may allow the appeal in Beltram to proceed because of unique facts in the case, but taxpayers should assume their appeal from an ALC decision will be dismissed if they do not pay the taxes at issue before filing a Notice of Appeal.

Court of Appeals Decisions

  • Hock RH, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Appellate Case No. 2015-002087 (March 28, 2018)

York Preparatory Academy (YPA) and Hock RH, LLC appealed an order of the Administrative Law Court affirming the South Carolina Department of Revenue’s (DOR’s) denial of a property tax exemption request and refund of 2013 property taxes.  YPA, a public charter school, leased property Hock RH, LLC.  Public charter schools are generally exempt from state and local taxes, including property taxes.  In 2013 a property tax exemption request was filed with DOR.  DOR denied the request because there is no property tax exemption for property leased to a public charter school.  In 2014 the South Carolina general assembly passed legislation to “clarify” that property a public charter school leases is exempt from property taxes.  The ALC determined the legislation did not apply retroactively and denied the 2013 property tax refund claim.  The Court of Appeals determined the legislation clarified the existing law exempting public charter schools from state and local taxes and granted the 2013 refund claim.

Observations:  Determining when legislation clarifies existing law or represents a change in law can be difficult.  Taxpayers who believe DOR has misinterpreted existing law often seek to have clarifying legislation enacted and applied retroactively.  This decision demonstrates that taxpayers can seek clarifying legislation and that our courts will recognize that it applies retroactively.

Supreme Court Decisions

  • Richland County v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Opinion No. 27775 (March 7, 2018)

This was a direct cross-appeal involving the scope of authority of the Department of Revenue (DOR) to enforce various provisions of state law relating to the imposition of a transportation penny tax by Richland County (County) and the County’s expenditure of the funds generated by the tax.  After DOR conducted an audit and informed the County that DOR intended to cease future remittances to the County based on purported misuse of funds, the County filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court, arguing DOR lacked the authority to stop payments and seeking a writ of mandamus compelling DOR to continue remitting revenues.  DOR counterclaimed seeking a declaration that the County’s expenditures were unlawful, an injunction to prohibit future unlawful expenditures, and alternatively, the appointment of a receiver to administer the County’s tax revenues. Following a hearing, the circuit court issued a writ of mandamus compelling DOR to remit the tax revenues, denied DOR’s request for injunctive relief, and also refused to appoint a receiver. Both the County and DOR appealed.  The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court decision in all respects, except for the denial of DOR’s request for injunctive relief.  The South Carolina Supreme Court found DOR was entitled to an injunction requiring the County to expend the funds generated by the penny tax solely on transportation-related projects, and has remanded the case back to the circuit court to determine the scope of an applicable injunction.

Observations:  This is a unique case involving the authority of a state taxing agency over a local county government.  Local governments, who may have believed they were not subject to oversight by SCDOR, will now need to be prepared to respond to audit requests from SCDOR and to explain how their use of funds complies with the applicable laws.  The decision addressed the transportation penny tax specifically, but there are other local taxes collected by DOR that DOR may now seek to monitor.  DOR will need to seek a court order to enforce compliance with applicable tax laws if DOR disagrees with the manner a local government is using tax funds.

Pending Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Tax Cases

  • Home Depot v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2018-000631

This case is discussed in the Administrative Law Court Decisions above.  Initial briefs have not yet been filed.

  • Greenville Hospital v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2017-001548

Greenville Hospital System (GHS) applied for a sales tax exemption.  DOR denied the sales tax exemption and GHS requested a contested case hearing before the ALC.  GHS is a 501(c)(3) hospital/healthcare organization.  Items sold by certain organizations are exempt from sales tax.  The organizations that can qualify for the exemption are identified by cross-reference to property tax exemptions, and include 501(c)(3) organizations.  The cross-references do not include property tax exemptions for political subdivisions or hospitals.  The ALC determined GHS did qualify for the sales tax exemption because it was specifically described in property tax exemptions that were not included in the sales tax cross-reference list.  GHS appealed the ALC decision.  Final briefs have been filed in the appeal.

Observations:  This decision may have a significant impact on certain charitable organizations, and extend beyond sales tax to property tax.  Many charitable organizations are identified by specific class (e.g. churches and hospitals) for property tax exemption purposes, and there is also a broader exemption for charitable organizations generally.  The scope of these exemptions is not identical, with the broader exemption for charitable organizations often providing a more expansive exemption.  If the Court of Appeals determines that GHS does not qualify for the sales tax exemption because it is specifically described in one exemption then any organization that is specifically described in one exemption will need to carefully review the applicability of sales tax exemptions and property tax exemptions to its sales and property.

  • Books-A-Million v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2017-001519

Books-A-Million sells memberships to customers that entitle them to certain discounts and perks.  DOR audited Books-A-Million and determined that it should have collected sales tax on the membership sales.  The ALC determined the sales of the memberships represented value proceeding or accruing from the sale of discounted tangible personal property and assessed sales taxes.  Final briefs have been filed.

Observations:  South Carolina courts have historically applied a “but for” test to determine whether revenues received incident to the sale of tangible personal property are subject to sales tax.  For example, layaway fees have been determined to be subject to sales tax.  If the memberships are determined to be subject to sales tax many organizations that charge for memberships will find themselves in uncertain territory.  For example, a country club that charges membership fees and also sells food, tennis equipment, and golf equipment could be found to be liable for sales tax on the membership fees.

  • Beltram v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2017-000968

The procedural aspects of this case are discussed in the Administrative Law Court Decisions above.  For a substantive discussion of the original ALC opinion, see the prior blog “Personal Tax Liability as a Responsible Party in South Carolina.”  An amended final order was filed on March 17, 2017.  The taxpayer is not contesting that he is a responsible party, but is arguing that his liability is based on the dates of tax liens were filed and that he should receive an increased attorney fee award.

Observations:  This case involves an unusual fact pattern and the issues on appeal are unique.  If the Court of Appeals were to allows attorney fees/discovery sanctions to be imposed on DOR it would represent a welcome opportunity for taxpayers to recover certain litigation costs in limited instances.  With the parties not contesting the substantive aspects of the responsible party determination and notice requirements, the ALC decision remains the most current guidance on South Carolina responsible party determinations.

  • DIRECTV, Inc. v. SCDOR, Appellate Case No. 2018-000211

This is an income tax apportionment case where DOR has sourced DIRECTV’s revenues essentially on a market basis.  The Court of Appeals upheld the ALC’s determination that all revenues from South Carolina customers should be sourced to South Carolina.  DIRECTV argues that it has income producing activities outside of South Carolina and all revenues from South Carolina customers should not be sourced to South Carolina.  DIRECTV has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is pending before the Supreme Court.

Observations:  This decision carries significant implications for multi-state businesses with South Carolina customers.  Most practitioners have not viewed South Carolina as a market basis state but this decision would open the door for DOR to tax more multi-state businesses on a market basis.  This would generally be disadvantageous to multi-state businesses who have significant expenses outside of South Carolina, but could be advantageous to businesses with significant South Carolina expenses and customers outside of South Carolina (these businesses should in fact consider filing protective refund claims).  The South Carolina Supreme Court is not required to hear the case and can simply let the Court of Appeals decision stand.

Written by:

McNair Law Firm, P.A.
Contact
more
less

McNair Law Firm, P.A. 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. 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. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our 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 are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy 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 our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.