Comments on: Bathing in the Hotel Merchant Tax Quagmire

By: mesothelioma lawyers

mesothelioma lawyers — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:26:16 +0000

Interesting , how would I make use of this?

By: Brennan

Brennan — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:45:18 +0000

This is the best breakdown of what is happening that I have seen and probably will see. The cities do not realize how much they are hurting their tourism industry when these major websites do not promote and book their locations. I think they do need to charge a hotel tax of some kind but they need to do a much better job of figuring out who pays it and that is part of the responsibilities of the OTA's and hotels as well. Like any other tax though the company does not absorb it but instead the consumer does so by increasing it you simply bite the hand that feeds you if you're a city that relies on tourism for a large amount of your revenue.

By: RobertKCole

RobertKCole — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:03:25 +0000

Thank you for the kind words. I'm just impressed that someone actually made it through all 9,500 words… There are some potential technical solutions, but it is going to take cooperation between the parties. If all the money being spent on litigation would have been channeled into a solution, everyone would have saved a lot of time and money.

By: RS

RS — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:34:36 +0000

This is absolutely the most comprehensive and readable writing I've seen on this topic, and it elucidated SO much for me to consider. I'm with a small municipal tax division…very curious to see where this will all play out. Bottom line is, I want the tax dollars that are appropriately due to my City; at the same time I don't want to cause undue harm to our local hotels (either via unreasonable requirements as to how they calculate tax payable, or via them being sued by the OTC's for “reimbursement” if I were to win against the OTC's…) Your article is brilliant – thank you so much.

By: connectme360

connectme360 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:12:16 +0000

Wow, this is like pornography for tax accountants. You have breathed more life into tax policy analysis than anyone I can remember…and I've actually been blogging about tax issues for several years. My last entry was a warning that if the tax issue continued to be ignored during times of prosperity, the **** would hit the fan when municipalities started to feel the need for revenue:
http://connectme.typepad.com/news/2008/08/how-t...

I am resigned to the notion that tax compliance is never going to be an easy thing unless something dramatic happens — something FAR more dramatic than our current debates over “V vs W vs L”. Federated (the department store company) pays $5 million a year for tax compliance advisory services in the absence of major litigation. While you provide an exhaustive look at why the issue should be settled rationally, I suspect the reality is the lack of a definitive precedent will continue to drive more and more municipalities into the fray.

This reminds me of the years leading up to the landmark 1992 Quill vs North Dakota decision, which (finally) set the standard for the shipment of goods across state lines directly to the consumer. Tax issues over direct marketing had been brewing since even before Lester Wunderman invented the term in 1967. We can only hope this issue, unlike the direct marketing tax, doesn't take 25 years to resolve. (BTW, the Quill ruling recently ceased to be an ironclad defense when mobile phones started taxing consumers based on where they lived, not where the wireless carrier was based.)

By: connectme360

connectme360 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:12:16 +0000