Hosts & Guests
Meredith Smith, Senior Tax Manager,
Judy Vorndran, Leading Partner, SALT
Richard Pomp, Partner, Horwood Marcus & Berk
Jordan Goodman, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut
Discussing SALT with Richard Pomp and Jordan Goodman (Part 1)
Meredith Smith: [00:00:00] Welcome to SALTovation. The SALTovation show is a podcast series featuring the leading voices in SALT, where we talk about the issues and strategies to help you make sense of state and local tax. Today, we are excited to share with you the first installment of our discussion with the always engaging duo, professor Richard Pomp and Jordan Goodman.
You don’t want to miss this discussion, where we get the backstory of how their top 10 lists came to be and their thoughts and some recent tax issues, including the North Carolina tax case against quad graphics and public law, 86-272. So, gentlemen, how did the big East brawl start and why do you all continue to publicly banter with each other?
Jordan Goodman: So I started, I don't think you remember, but uh,
Richard Pomp: people viewed him as, uh, he’s that guy on Fox news,
Jordan Goodman: Carlson, Tucker or something. Oh my God. My family is going to watch this good looking guy, spreading misinformation, large following, making a lot of money. And people came to me and they said,
Richard Pomp: you got to, you know, you got to stop him.
He got it. Just tell the truth and justice and everything else.
Jordan Goodman: Why don't you be like Rachel Maddow? And I said, okay. And that's how I met Jordan. I watched a couple of his
Richard Pomp: tapes and I said, this I'm pretty outrageous. I can't believe this
Jordan Goodman: crap actually. It's, it's similar to that, but very different. He got it right.
That I was at. To participate with them, but really what, what the people at IPT and ABA down to who organized the big brawl, they spent some time looking down at the ground and I was like, what the heck are they doing? They're looking at the ground. They're looking to see who had really big. Because there was amazingly big shoes to fill, and that was a fall Frankel's as Paul and professor pop used to debate in the big bra.
They've done it in Hartman at NYU, all over the country. They've had this wonderful comradery battle informative, humorous thing. And then Paul stepped away for a little bit because we all know Paul Frank, going to the Godfather's state local. And they're looking for somebody who finally, you know, it's almost like the Harlem globe Trotters and the Washington generals all beat down on professor Pompe, every event, everywhere they were and they felt bad.
So they said, you know, the Washington generals have to, when somebody who can we get, and they looked at me and they said, well, here's somebody who could beat up on. And that's how I got.
Richard Pomp: It is true.
Jordan Goodman: They said, here's the library for you. And that's the way it all started, but we can continue doing this. Why are
Richard Pomp: we the base each other, the base,
Jordan Goodman: I consider it an honor.
And a privilege to just talk with you. You are one of the smartest well-versed constitutional state tax people I've ever met in my life. And I, and I am in. That's all right, you get the good lunch. I would go to some third grade class if they paid me what they pay me to the
Richard Pomp: bank, the sky. So it's but
Jordan Goodman: it is honestly, it is always fun to prepare for.
Professor Bob, we get to talk about different things and we're not constrained by necessarily a client's position. We're able to look at stuff around the country and give our opinion on it. And we do agree a lot, but we also disagree on some things. And professor pump is very good about that. And where were we last?
Was that Nashville or Nashville?
Richard Pomp: I believe, I believe you correct me if I'm wrong. That I showed off Jordan's body to the
Jordan Goodman: audience at Nashville, right? His flat
Richard Pomp: stomach and opened up this
Jordan Goodman: sport jacket.
Richard Pomp: I may have enjoyed
Jordan Goodman: for those [00:04:00] pretty outrageous. So National's off the, of one of the most famous things in state and local tax.
It's the Roberto Duran moment for those that don't remember you fighting sugar Ray Leonard in the middle of the fight. He said, no, MAs no MAs and left the ring. Right. Yeah. Right. Craziness. How about six years ago as a professor pop right in the middle, we got 15, 20 minutes to go in a presentation. He gets up and leaves the building, left the building, something about some kind of plane.
I think actually I had beaten him down so badly. He couldn't take anymore. No, no. It's prostate issues that this thing I had to leave early. So yeah, I did. I came back in the bathroom. No, it really is just, it's fun to debate about it. I think we get good questions. We get good comments. It's always fun to talk about the latest topics in our chosen state, local tax field.
Meredith Smith: you all determine what you are going to talk about? Is it just kind of a, here's kind of what everyone else is talking about here is what we find
Judy Vorndran: interesting.
Jordan Goodman: It's a [00:05:00] combination of the two battles you can intend. I'm going to say have, so what I do is kind of collect cases over the year. I put something together.
I sent it to professor Bob and he goes, no, no, no, no. No, and then sends me a bunch of cases he wants to talk about. Now there wasn't a little known secret is 90% of all the cases he sends me. He is the key witness in it. Witness. So rally them around. I don't have to prepare
Richard Pomp: if you approach Jordan has, shall we say rather eclectic tastes in cases
Jordan Goodman: and a sense of, to me, I've never heard
Richard Pomp: of most of them.
Most of them seem to have no implications for anything other than Jordan
Jordan Goodman: White stone. And we go back and forth, shorter puts together the outline. I
Richard Pomp: always give them credit and make it clear all the mistakes to his or the typos or his, he has a way of spelling the minimis with the U, which [00:06:00] irks me. No, N the minimalist eyes.
He should know that by now little stuff like that,
Jordan Goodman: you know, the typical creative process. We start off with something raw. We keep working it back and forth. We get cases in there. We organize them. Well, then we assign who's going to do which one. And then the other one for pairs to counterpoint to anything the other one says.
And then on occasion we find ourselves in agreement and it's really interesting to, depending upon the audience we do tailor our thoughts. Right. Uh, for Hartman in particular, there's a lot of government of peoples you can't be ripping on the government. You got to compliment them a little bit. So our, our, our dialogue does change depending upon who's in the audience.
Richard Pomp: Um, Jordan believes in what Groucho Marx, when. Those are my principles. And if you don't like them, I have other
Jordan Goodman: principals. So depending on the audience, he just trust out
Richard Pomp: oh, different Jordan Goodman, but that's the way it is. I am the same, no matter
Jordan Goodman: who the [00:07:00] audience is, I
Richard Pomp: have, I have what I believe
Jordan Goodman: in and I don't.
So, unless there's big donor in the
Richard Pomp: crowd, then that's different. But, but normally we make, you know, a couple of thousand bucks for every gig. Yeah. I forgot what we're
Jordan Goodman: making for this podcast, but a couple of thousand over
Richard Pomp: normal speaking course.
Jordan Goodman: And
Meredith Smith: furthering your, your prominence. I mean, this is, you're talking about the big dogs, right? Like where
Jordan Goodman: our listenership is,
Meredith Smith: it's going to triple out.
Jordan Goodman: Jordan's inspiration to,
Richard Pomp: uh, all the, uh, the people, the young, the young screws in the audience say, look at him and say,
Jordan Goodman: boy, if he could do it so anybody can
Judy Vorndran: extrovert and the introvert that's for sure.[00:08:00]
Meredith Smith: What do you mean tax people are known for their personalities? We're vibrant and we're bubbly where the most,
Jordan Goodman: I mean, I think that's why we all have successful careers is because we're not the typical, look it up in the dictionary kind of people. Right. Well, yeah. People, we like go, what out? We have a good time.
And you know, I think the one thing we do all share is this kind of passion for this goofy arcane area, right? Stall people say past it, cause they want to put it on their meat. That's not something people care about. So it's, it's, you know, that's something that we all desperately really enjoy. It's fun to read the cases.
It's fun to see what's going on. And I think we like it so much. We share that and it comes out when, when we present. Yeah, I agree with that. Great professional wise dating life, not so good.
Meredith Smith: I mean, I don't know. I got my partner, uh, before, before I committed to a career in state and local tax. So he's in [00:09:00] otherwise.
Richard Pomp: um, you must have a strong.
Jordan Goodman: He doesn't listen to
Meredith Smith: this. I don't, I don't make that much money, but he is, he is an educator in the public school sector. Okay. So, well then one of the cases that we kind of wanted to talk about and can kind of seems as if it's got a lot of, kind of implications with what, what happened in Wayfair was the NC quiet graphics, North Carolina.
That you all had on your list. Um, and your most recent, one of your recent and top tens? I do believe as I was reading it, I did see the pump name come up.
Jordan Goodman: So.
Meredith Smith: supporting all sides of the argument we've gotten, you know, the, uh, I'm gonna pick something that I was a witness in. However, it does seem to, you know, kind of. [00:10:00] Oh, my goodness, maybe some stuff that's happening
Richard Pomp: just to set the record straight. It were, it was an article of mine that was stated by the court.
Thank you for the clarification. It was not in
Jordan Goodman: that case. Yep. Yep. And if you want to get my good side, just send me whatever Christmas newsletters.
Richard Pomp: It's all good. All good, but quad. Yes. What do you think Jordan? I have very
Jordan Goodman: strong views.
Richard Pomp: I
Jordan Goodman: suspect you shoe. I think it is a, uh, what's the right Latin for it.
Let's not all get excited about this. I mean, the important point is it kind of clarified what complete auto says it clarified what Dilworth said it clarified what Wayfair said with respect to precedent, transactional nexus. Okay. Going back to Dilworth don't you know, so here's what they look dealing with was the Arkansas case.
We talked about that professor pop was there either [00:11:00] bought something from the Tennessee sellers that was a 19, uh, 1937 Arkansas adopted a sales tax that deal with getting by. And you know, when they adopted a use Texas and Arkansas, 1949, you know why they adopted a use tax because they lost Dilworth. It took them awhile to get their checks in Arkansas.
This is a use tax case, not a sales tax case, right? It's not.
Richard Pomp: The assessment was for the sales tax Dover, South Dakota, where there a groundbreaking statute. It was failure to collect their sales tax should have been drafted, uh, as Jordan suggests fairly to collect the use tax. So quad, I
Jordan Goodman: will, in the interest of harmony, I will agree with
Richard Pomp: Jordan.
I don't like labels like [00:12:00] transactional nexus. I have a much simpler approach. They had a sales tax, North Carolina, and therefore you need a sale if you're going to collect a sales tax. And there was no sale in North Carolina, because title passed outside of North Carolina possession passed outside of North Carolina.
Where's your, your hook to Libya sales tax. There was no sale. Now you could call that lack of transactional nexus. I think that just confuses things. What I find interesting Jordan, the taxpayer presumably did not file a return and therefore the statute has not. Why don't they just cure this by issuing a second assessment for failure to collect, use tax.
Jordan Goodman: I agree with you on that. And it kind of hurts me a little bit, but there are schedule limitations. If you don't file for use tax. Sometimes it's six years, it gets extended, double what the normal statute of limitations, but there are statute limitations [00:13:00] on use that cause. But what I, what I find more interesting about this.
And it might be because there are different types of taxes, but the apportionment, this was a sourcing case as with Dilworth, it's sourcing about where did the sale occur? That's all well and good, but we've got, uh, the Mia and greenscape cases out of Ohio, dealing with the cat where Ohio has adopted the ultimate destination test.
And so I had a case there not one of those where. The trucks came to New Mexico to pick up the goods and they weren't, our trucks, they're someone else's drugs. Ultimately went back to Ohio for temporary storage and they moved on and we ended up having to pay Ohio cat tax. Not on a use tax office or sales tax on a transact on the cat value added texts, but the ultimate destination test seemed to be accepted by the Ohio Supreme court as a legitimate tax.
And then it's no, I'm talking about lack of transaction. Where did the sale occur? It all occurred outside, but they said it [00:14:00] ultimately ended up in Ohio and that was ultimately ended up. I'm reconciling notes. Well, maybe
Richard Pomp: you should start by acknowledging Ohio has a grocery seats, turnover tax and not a sales tax.
So we're dealing with a different type of tax, right from the get-go. It doesn't have a use tax because it's a turnover tax gross receipts tax turn, a use tax would make much sense
Jordan Goodman: and, uh, and therefore
Richard Pomp: your sales tax learning. The sales tax is interesting because you can sell tangible,
Jordan Goodman: personal
Richard Pomp: property and deliver it to a distributor.
They're your purchaser.
Jordan Goodman: They stored in a warehouse and
Richard Pomp: this will be viewed as occurring in that state, even though it could be trend ship the afternoon at arrives in the morning,
Jordan Goodman: uh, the day it arrives,
Richard Pomp: it can
Jordan Goodman: be tracked. [00:15:00] And we're very formalistic
Richard Pomp: about this destination test in a sales tax. We know we never looked through it.
Well, the grocery seat sex is, is
Jordan Goodman: different and it's almost
Richard Pomp: like it looked through ultimate destination just stopped here voluntarily and then continues on its way the next day. And Ohio would say, well, if it ultimately ends up here, that's a, uh, a receipt from Ohio. So you get, it is quirky that the grocery tax is extremely quirky, right?
Jordan Goodman: mid agent middle ages. But the question here, right. And it's quite clear. It can be cured. I, you know, it's a great victory, taxpayer victory. It re it kind of said that Wayfair really had nothing to do with Dilworth. It didn't talk about sourcing and it doesn't talk about sourcing. Although your point about a sales tax in South Dakota is correct.
That's the way the statute is written, but really if they had done [00:16:00] it correctly, we wouldn't even having this discussion. If they had access to use tax. Are you fixed selection obligation under Wayfair? We wouldn't be having this discussion.
Richard Pomp: Correct. Can we, and I don't know why they haven't subsequently done it.
Jordan Goodman: my question to go all
Judy Vorndran: the way through the courts and to a decision seems like kind of a waste of everybody's
Jordan Goodman: time.
Judy Vorndran: And now we have a decision that's up there on the universe to review. Okay.
Jordan Goodman: Yeah, I think it was Mike Bowen's case. Kudos to him for arguing what was before him, that they issued a sales tax and that's not appropriate.
And he lost it. The hearings one in the appeal on appeal in the circuit court. But really if you're sitting and talking to your decorator, Where we may win this. Um, but you know, you're going to pay eventually, they're going to figure it out
Richard Pomp: and it was just a screw up by the tax
Jordan Goodman: department. Right. And then do you do a VDA now on the use tax side and avoid interest in penalties by doing the [00:17:00] VDA for these years?
I just can't imagine
Judy Vorndran: spending all that money to take it to court and, you know, pay her attorney fees, you know, depending on what's in question. So cost a lot of money to ramp up for a lawsuit. Good. $50,000, I would say. So you got to have enough in question to take that through and then continue on. Right.
And then the years of waiting.
Richard Pomp: But on a contingency basis for you this year, a
Jordan Goodman: buddy of his, I don't know,
Richard Pomp: are you doing much to these aren't
Jordan Goodman: today? I would say a very, very none. Yeah.
Richard Pomp: Makes sense to tax rate, but they, like, I don't know that they shy away from it. Why is that?
Jordan Goodman: Or the changing fees that
Richard Pomp: no one can take. Basis. Why do they shy away from
Jordan Goodman: that? We've done some, you know, [00:18:00] hybrid, alternative, you know, stuff like that. We know that our firm is structured and we're meat and potatoes.
We do it on hours. That's how we survive. We do well with that system. Well, I bucket, but no, I, I mean, I've certainly done cases where there's some kind of alternative fee arrangement because cases are good, you know, and then we take a rate and the clients like it, because if they feel like you're buying in, you're going to give it your best effort because that's how you get paid.
It's worked out now. I find taxpayers shy away from it more than they should as perfectly.
Richard Pomp: It's a rational way to sh to share risk.
Jordan Goodman: Yeah. But they
Judy Vorndran: don't want you to get a windfalls and an attorney of like 30% of the, of the way. So that probably is part of it too, because it's a giant fee compared to the
Jordan Goodman: effort.
Yes, it can
Richard Pomp: be, but that's what risk sharing
Jordan Goodman: sometimes. Yeah, but if we save $10 million, aren't we entitled to half a million dollars of that I made. Right. Isn't it something
again, [00:19:00] I think it's just hard. It's really hard from a budgeting perspective, unless it's pure contingent. Right. I find that a corporate America really likes to have things known and budgeted and it can be sort of budget and know it, then it would be if you paid on a contingency fee, but that's kind of the way that they like it.
Richard Pomp: I think you're right. So. I'll check fees now, right? It's becoming increasingly common, such as
Jordan Goodman: Raz for a project fee budgeting,
Judy Vorndran: kind of a fixed fee is what you mean by that.
Jordan Goodman: Litigation's probably the biggest wild card there because I know for corporate deals and trusts. Okay. Just things like that, you know, or turn preparation, fix. These are all good, but I think litigation's a wild card. And I think any, you know, from our perspective, we're, we'll talk about a win and retain it, but we're going to protect ourselves a little bit because the, you know, discovery can go crazy and that's what interlocutory appeals go crazy.
All [00:20:00] those kinds of things
Judy Vorndran: get a decision. If
Jordan Goodman: it's a motion for summary judgment, and we don't need even professor prop as an expert. A lot easier to deal with big mistake, but okay.
Richard Pomp: Not having an expert, whether it's me or anyone else, bigness,
Jordan Goodman: no professors palms great. Because he's one of those windup toys, because you ask them a question and then you could just go on pause for like an hour while you're explaining it to the judge.
He gets his pizza explanation out box about apportionment and pizza, the pie. It's beautiful. So if you haven't seen it, you got to see it. We've got. And you can just zone out, talk about, you know, what you're going to have for lunch at that point. It's all good.
Judy Vorndran: I just don't understand this stuff. I mean, there's not a
Jordan Goodman: part of professor pump's genius, his ability to break it down to everybody, right?
The reasonable person, common man, complement woman, common person. That that's what his genius is of being able to take our complex, most complex stuff and say, here's how it is. [00:21:00] And. General things found in the kitchen to explain it to a judge so they can understand it. Judge, may I approach the chart, pull out my chin should knife.
Meredith Smith: He says, you need to be doing that with all the state legislators. Let's say people who have no idea what they're doing either.
Jordan Goodman: Meredith. I once testified in Vermont,
Richard Pomp: they w they weren't
Jordan Goodman: combined reporting at
Richard Pomp: this time. And I was there to help maybe, uh, bring it over the line. And I got, I
Jordan Goodman: got done talking about Delaware Hopeling companies and
Richard Pomp: transferring the IP. This is in the, you
Jordan Goodman: know, the Jeffrey era, right.
Richard Pomp: The part-time legislature, at least then, and there are a bunch of farmers and this farmer said to me, he [00:22:00] said, I am not
Jordan Goodman: sure I follow that professor, but let me see if I have.
So they sit in New York and
Richard Pomp: they create some fictional something or other in Delaware. And we get screwed here in Vermont. Does that, I think you got,
Jordan Goodman: I think you filed,
Richard Pomp: I'm voting for this here combined. My reporting by reporting. We're going to stop at screw
Jordan Goodman: job reporting. That's
Richard Pomp: funny. Funny, very good.
Cause they're all dairy farmers.
Jordan Goodman: I want to use
Richard Pomp: that as
Jordan Goodman: agriculture. I like that. How much would you say? Okay, well, what's the legislative intent. Oh, no one told him to vote this way. That's what the, [00:23:00]
Richard Pomp: to my thing is to stop. We're getting screwed somehow that that's our intent
Jordan Goodman: more money
Judy Vorndran: in our coffers.
Meredith Smith: Well then kind of using that as a transition for potentially more money, potentially getting screwed and, or, you know, waiting on the legislation to potentially do something.
The MTC, right. Has a revised statement associated with public IED 62 72, and kind of clarifying maybe some interpretations related to the internet stuff. Um, I'm going to go out on a limb and maybe you say that you might have some opinions on it on what was done.
Jordan Goodman: Did you hear, did you hear Jordan Mon Mo growl?
Richard Pomp: Smirk should go
Jordan Goodman: first on this. All right. So here, here's my thought about that? [00:24:00] I don't know why 86 to 72 degrees. Anymore, but it does it's on the books and should be respected. I think what the MTC is adjusting is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. I'll hold back. I'll really be reserved about it is absolutely the dumbest policy I've ever seen because.
It basically doesn't exist anymore. Right? They're going to cut the heart out of 86 to 72 and it doesn't exist anymore. That's not their function. That's not the role. Get the, get the law repealed because what happens here is just a pure trap for the unwary. And what we talked about when professor poppin, I talked about this last was.
How does this get resolved? So I'm staying, it's going adopt the MCC policy, go after somebody claiming 86 to 72, say you've got cookies in the state. They're taking this, they're doing that. They're not static. They're not session cookies. They're persistent cookies. They're getting all this kind of information and they're going to Sue somebody and that person's going to fight them.[00:25:00]
And they're going to fight them up to the highest court. Cause now it's a federal. But a lot is being interpreted at state court, us Supreme court, they're going to win or they lose, let's say the MTC wins. Let's say that the world has changed six years later, we find out that this position that someone took is good.
So what happens? They go back to actively against everybody else. Right. That's stupid policy. If the law doesn't make sense anymore, either got to expand it to include everybody or get rid of it from a policy perspective. It's an old law that's supposed to be temporary six months. That's all people thought it would be would be six months, a year, two years.
That was in 1959. We still have it. We still have it. This is ridiculous either. It's a good law and we have to observe it and expand it, or we get rid of it. But to do it by death by a thousand cuts is ridiculous. That's my feeling.
Richard Pomp: I need some oxygen in this room. I think, you know [00:26:00] what I, I can imagine happening. The same thing we saw in the sales tax
Jordan Goodman: area, where we have. Professors
Richard Pomp: of
Jordan Goodman: electrical engineering and
Richard Pomp: physics debating, whether Tricity is tangible or intangible something they
Jordan Goodman: never thought about in their
Richard Pomp: life. Nothing they've ever taught.
No textbook on quantum physics has an entry under the intangible, tangible discussion.
Jordan Goodman: And here they are. Talking about the nature of electricity
Richard Pomp: and we are going to see the same thing when it comes to well, where's the cookie actually
Jordan Goodman: inserted and well, it
Richard Pomp: a cookie. And, uh, is that a business activity that occurs in the customers?
If the cookie is inserted at
Jordan Goodman: the vendor's location, all of that, I think it's just going to be hopeless.
Richard Pomp: And the [00:27:00] MTC, the, the premise of
Jordan Goodman: all of their
Richard Pomp: examples is that when you're dealing with a website that's business activity in this thing, and that's what AB 60, 72 starts off saying, if your only business I check.
So they say, okay, well, this is. Just activity, but in all of the juicy cases, it's not the only activity because you now have cookies in the state
Jordan Goodman: that are gathering important information that you're going to use. And,
Richard Pomp: uh, I.
Jordan Goodman: I agree
Richard Pomp: with the short and this will just go on and on and on and litigation. I hope no say we'll adopt the retroactively, but you
Jordan Goodman: never know.
Well, and I'm just curious
Judy Vorndran: with the MTC doing this. I mean, is it because they just don't have the power to reverse fuel at 60 72 because it's a federal, so it's their way to override it administratively and [00:28:00] push for adoption.
Meredith Smith: Right? It's like, but they have no authority. Like you've got to do. Someone has to do something with their kind of like thoughts.
Jordan Goodman: Right. Correct.
MTC can issue on assessment, right? Not on, on their own. They have to get permission by a state. They can do audits on behalf of the state in states that can enforce it. So the MTC can, so they put it out to their member states. Someone's going to adopt it. Someone's going to do it, but
Judy Vorndran: anybody who might be adopting it and you guys have.
Jordan Goodman: Not yet, but
Meredith Smith: you kind of think like realistically wouldn't you from a state's perspective, be stupid, not to kind of like Wayfair, like wouldn't you be stupid not to impose these other than potentially if there's a legislator or like a legal challenge to it, and they don't want
Jordan Goodman: to go through that, but remember what happened.
South Dakota adopted it. A couple other states adopted it. And then once they won, you [00:29:00] know,
Judy Vorndran: right. But pre wafer, there are 15 states that had adopted Wayfair 15 of the 46 or 45 plus DC that passed sales tax law. So. If you think about it and including New York? No, but
Jordan Goodman: let's go back to the late eighties to before COVID was decided how many states adopted regular and systematic solicitation is economic nexus standard, right?
30, 30 something states adopted it and it got shot down in quilt. That's a good point. Yeah, you're trying
Richard Pomp: to send numbers in, in many areas, but doesn't
Jordan Goodman: guarantee. I just
Judy Vorndran: feel like with the sales tax licensure, you know, really growing exponentially across the nation with lots of million dollar a year companies, they're exceeding thresholds in one way or the other in one place or another you're in the system now.
Right. And now you're just, it just builds on itself. I see this as just unwrapping itself to more compliance and no company is going to know how to manage their PLT 60 [00:30:00] to 72 or not. They don't even know what that means as a small seller.
Jordan Goodman: It's really well-made because the reality of is relative. This does everybody who buys online now or selling from remotely wants it next day, same day, Gessel.
Right. So what does that mean? That means you have inventory everywhere. That's the whole Amazon piece of it about they have your inventory all over the country. Now you go and beyond 86 to $72. So they're already without the cookie stuff with actually physical presence, having inventory, there's some lawsuits that have been thrown out saying it's.
Our inventory is actually Amazon's inventory, whatever, but we are getting there, but not to some ludicrous, bad proposal, trying to change the metaphysical way of how we determine physical presence in a state and activities in a state,
Judy Vorndran: you should just drop having a remote employee. I mean, one remote employee is nexus.
I mean that, I just think that is as silly to me. Like, and especially now post COVID or.[00:31:00]
Jordan Goodman: What do you feel? Does that mean that they're because they're getting paid more, they're making more decisions and more important that the company is doing business there? No,
Judy Vorndran: of course not. I mean, you're working remotely, we're talking you're in Illinois. I don't know where you are. Your secret place, Richard professor.
Richard Pomp: Well,
Jordan Goodman: I think that, you know, philosophically, I don't, I don't know if I can agree with you with that because at some point. Why aren't we all set up techs everywhere, established some diminimous level of overall sales or sales into the state. Of course, the state is, is a function of sourcing and sourcing on the sales tech side or on services may be different than selling on the in-context side, but ultimately that's where we're going.
They want everybody to be taxable everywhere. Yes, right? Yes. And I will defend against that to the nth degree, because that's not what our laws say now, but ultimately, maybe that's where we got to go chat room, but
Judy Vorndran: MTC [00:32:00] having a chat room, having an application, I mean, give me a real, one of the things on the internet.
Meredith Smith: One of it was one. You can't go to a website without saying like, Hey, we're tracking, are your cookies? We have access to data. We're going to collect data.
Judy Vorndran: Right? I know you can't even look at it with
Meredith Smith: one of them. One of them isn't even a chat box. It's like, if you send an email to customer service and it's like, okay, that's dumb.
Like, right. And if it's like, okay, well, if I have the ability to do this, someone like, how am I really gonna monitor that? And it's just like, okay, well, general policy. Yeah. Yeah. I might not know that someone directly is answering a chat function. That's non-static in Nebraska, but I have to presume that they are because they have the ability to do that.
So it's kind of like, I can't
Jordan Goodman: prove it right. Instead of graphic user fine. Right. If you could read a question, they give you an answer it's on their website. No big deal. But if they respond to you, if you're able to ask a question that goes beyond it, but if I picked up the [00:33:00] phone and called them and someone answered that's legit.
Judy Vorndran: That's ridiculous. Everybody's doing chat boxes. I just did it last weekend. I got an extra discount off my anthropology order because everything I bought, what on sale even more. And I got a 25% discount or D days from purchase. So I tried with them when they did it. I didn't call anybody.
Meredith Smith: This podcast is for educational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be relied upon as legal tax accounting or investment in.
You should consult with a competent professional to discuss specifics of your situation and the applicability of the information presented. .
Sign up to receive email updates
Enter your name and email address below and I'll send you periodic updates about the podcast.
Questions asked and answered in this Episode:
- How “The Big East Brawl” started and why they continue to banter with each other
- How they determine what to talk about
- Their thoughts and opinions on recent tax issues including North Carolina’s tax case against Quad Graphics and the MTC’s revised statement regarding Public Law 86-272
What You Will Discover:
- [00:38] The origin story of “The Big East Brawl”
- [04:52] How they determine what to talk about
- [09:14] Their thoughts on North Carolina’s tax case against Quad Graphics
- [17:42] Contingency and alternative fee arrangements
- [20:14] Breaking down complex issues to the common man
- [23:12] Their opinions on MTC’s revised statement for Public Law 86-272
- “We go back and forth. Jordan puts together the outline. I always give him credit, and make it clear that all the mistakes are his.” – Richard Pomp [05:47]
- “Part of Professor Pomp’s genius is the ability to break it down to everybody, right? To the reasonable person, common man, common woman, common person. That’s what his genius is is being able to take our complex, most complex stuff and say ‘Here’s how it is,’ and use general things found in a kitchen to explain it to a judge so they can understand it.” – Jordan Goodman [20:43]
- “If the law doesn’t make sense anymore, you either got to expand it to include everybody or get rid of it from a policy perspective.” – Jordan Goodman [25:20]