In this issue:

- Arizona: Software Licenses Determined to Be Personal Property Rentals

- Rent-a-Cloud: Arizona’s Transaction Privilege Tax Applies to Receipts from the Temporary Use of Online Software

- Handle with Care: “Shipping and Handling” Fees Subject to Arizona Transaction Privilege Tax

- California Court Melts Ice Cream Maker’s External Obsolescence Argument

- Colorado High Court Rejects Public Utility’s Request for Parity-Down

- Ending the Storm Tax: Delaware Excludes Emergency-Related Work from Nexus Determination

- Two States, One Compact: Michigan Joins California in Reviewing the Multistate Tax Compact

- New Jersey Says It Is Going to Pass on Imposing Sales Tax on Cloud Computing

- New York: Disallowance of Mandatory Combined Reporting Position Sustained

- New York Trial Court Trims the Fat but Keeps the Meat on False Claims Act Lawsuit

- To Be Taxed or Not to Be Taxed? Ancillary Telephone Charges Examined for Purposes of Pennsylvania’s Gross Receipts Tax

- Texas Reins In Its Comptroller: Specified Locations to Qualify as a Retailer’s Place of Business for Sales Tax Remittance Purposes

- Even the Refunds Are Bigger: Texas to Return Up to $50 Million in Sales and Use Taxes Paid by Cable, Internet and Telecom Service Providers

- Texas Apportionment: Think Outside the [Set-Top] Box

- Excerpt from: Two States, One Compact: Michigan Joins California in Reviewing the Multistate Tax Compact:

On July 3, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court granted International Business Machines Corporation’s (IBM) motion for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ November 20, 2012, judgment in favor of Michigan in International Business Machines v. Department of Treasury, Michigan Supreme Ct., Case No. 146440. Consequently, the highest courts in Michigan and California are now both poised to decide whether taxpayers in those states have the right to elect to apportion their business income using the Multistate Tax Compact’s (Compact) apportionment formula. The California Supreme Court is reviewing the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Gillette Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, Cal. Supreme Ct., Case No. S206587, with briefing already under way.