Blogs

Search Blogs
Search by date
Choose From Date
Choose To Date
SearchClear

A Bad Day for Bad Debt Deductions: Retailers Lose in Arizona and Kentucky

Retailers and banks continue to get whipsawed on sales tax bad debt deductions where a retailer provides a private label credit card program in conjunction with a third party bank. The Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals ruled that a retailer was not entitl

February 18, 2013

Retailers and banks continue to get whipsawed on sales tax bad debt deductions where a retailer provides a private label credit card program in conjunction with a third party bank. The Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals ruled that a retailer was not entitled to a bad debt deduction because it was not the party that wrote off the bad debts on its books and records. Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Kentucky Fin. and Admin. Cabinet, No. K10-R-25 (Oct. 17, 2012).

The Arizona Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, 287 P.3d 97 (Oct. 2, 2012). In a prior case, the same Arizona court rejected the bank’s bad debt refund claim because it was not the retailer that actually paid the tax. DaimlerChrysler Servs. N. Am., LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 110 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). In other words, neither party in a typical private label credit card arrangement is able to claim a sales tax bad debt deduction in Arizona. The state is unjustly enriched, in our view, by retaining sales tax paid by the retailer on transactions where the consumer never actually pays for the goods.

Retailers have prevailed in some states on bad debt claims. The Michigan Supreme Court, for example, rejected the state’s appeal from an unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals granting the retailer’s bad debt refund claim. Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, No. 301341, 2012 WL 1890219 (Mich. Ct. App. May 24, 2012), appeal denied, 821 N.W.2d 664 (Mich. Oct. 22, 2012). Other states, such as California, have remedied the unjust enrichment to the state by legislatively permitting the retailer and/or bank to make an election allowing one of the parties to claim the bad debt refund. See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §§ 6055, 6203.5.

Our Story

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP is an international law firm helping the Fortune 100, industry leaders, sector innovators and business entrepreneurs solve their biggest challenges and reach their business goals. Dedicated to unfaltering excellence in client service, we are known for our business savvy and industry intelligence, providing creative and custom solutions for each of our clients. Industry and business experience makes the difference for our clients.

click to watch Videocast: Sutherland SALT Scoreboard – 2nd Quarter Highlights
Videocast: Sutherland SALT Scoreboard – 2nd Quarter Highlights
Washington, DC
Elizabeth S. Cha, Associate
Washington, DC
© 2016 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP / Sutherland (Europe) LLP
MYBRIEFCASE
Add this page to MYBRIEFCASE
Add Page to MYBRIEFCASE
News/Commentary - A Bad Day for Bad Debt Deductions: Retailers Lose in Arizona and Kentucky
Current MYBRIEFCASE Pages
Save ChangesDownload MYBRIEFCASEClear All