Apple & other tech giants appeal Maryland's digital advertising tax

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2023

A digital advertising tax law passed in Maryland in 2021 is coming under fire, with Apple and other tech companies appealing the law and demanding refunds on taxes already paid.

Maryland taxes digital ads
Maryland taxes digital ads



Maryland passed the first-of-its-kind tax on digital advertising in 2021. It was expected to bring in about $250 million per year to fund lofty education goals.

According to a report from The Baltimore Banner, Apple is leading the charge in opposing the tax. A hearing is set for November 17, and other companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft have filed appeals as well.

Apple argues in its court filings that the tax "singles out advertising services delivered over the internet for taxation while advertising services delivered through other means are expressly excluded from taxation altogether." The company also takes issue with how the taxes are determined to be paid.

Companies that earn at least $100 million per year globally are required to pay the advertising tax on all digital ads run within Maryland. These requirements and implementations allegedly violate multiple federal laws and constitutional protections.

Apple is appealing to have the tax struck down and a full refund be issued. Maryland has reportedly collected $32 million from the tax in 2023 so far.

Americans for Digital Opportunity, which represents the interests of the advertising industry, isn't a part of the case but its president Doug Mayer offered some commentary on the case.

"This suit is just one more proof point that Maryland has bitten off way more than it can chew with this short sighted and illegal tax," Mayer said. "Digital advertising is utilized by businesses of all sizes and that is exactly who is paying for this now: Maryland businesses both small and large. Someday soon this tax will be ruled unconstitutional, and the state will be forced to pay back every penny it took -- hope they haven't started spending it."

Comptroller Brooke Lierman has filed a motion to dismiss Apple's case that will be considered by a Maryland Tax Court judge. The comptroller asserts that Apple didn't properly apply for a refund and isn't due one.

The case will be heard Friday, November 17.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    Maryland also taxes EBOOKS😡
    Every paid ebook has sales tax on it.
    Also on games from the app store.
    The ebook tax is just wrong. 


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 8
    South Dakota v. Wayfair seems to have opened up the ability for states to tax interstate commerce. I always thought per the US Constitution that only the federal government could tax interstate commerce but the 2018 Supreme Court ruling allows states to do so.
    DogpersonFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 8
    South Dakota v. Wayfair seems to have opened up the ability for states to tax interstate commerce. I always thought per the US Constitution that only the federal government could tax interstate commerce but the 2018 Supreme Court ruling allows states to do so.

    The Constitution limits regulation of interstate commerce to the Feds.  Permitting the states to impose taxes on goods sold inside the state, even if the buyer is outside, falls under the heading of "regulation."

    The fact that some things that are essentially the same are omitted reveals this for what it really is though. "We want some of that money we couldn't ordinarily get."
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 8
    South Dakota v. Wayfair seems to have opened up the ability for states to tax interstate commerce. I always thought per the US Constitution that only the federal government could tax interstate commerce but the 2018 Supreme Court ruling allows states to do so.

    The Constitution limits regulation of interstate commerce to the Feds.  Permitting the states to impose taxes on goods sold inside the state, even if the buyer is outside, falls under the heading of "regulation."

    The fact that some things that are essentially the same are omitted reveals this for what it really is though. "We want some of that money we couldn't ordinarily get."
    AND?  corporations have armies of lawyers that do nothing BUT go to war over "We want some of that money we couldn't ordinarily get."


    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 8
    Dogperson said:
    Maryland also taxes EBOOKS😡
    Every paid ebook has sales tax on it.
    Also on games from the app store.
    The ebook tax is just wrong. 

    Why? Maryland sales tax applies to physical books, so why not digital ones?



    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 6 of 8
    Of course, it’s for education! Never mind that the average Montgomery County (some of the towns in the county are Rockville, Gaithersburg, Bethesda, Potomac) student already costs taxpayers $15k–$20k/year. If you can’t produce quality education with that much money, an extra 10%, 20%, 25% isn’t going to do it.

    All taxes end up being a burden to the individual. For businesses and corporations they are part of the cost of doing business. That cost is always going to get passed along to the consumer. We need to get in the habit of opposing every and all tax increases, because we are already spending about half of our income on federal, state and municipal government.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 8
    A digital ad tax is about the best tax I've ever heard of.

    1.) Taxes reduce consumption of whatever they're applied to (this is why cigarette taxes are high - they're equal parts anti-smoking measure and revenue generator). An ad is a nearly unique product of generally negative value to the consumer (the consumer would prefer to have FEWER of them). Special cases like Super Bowl commercials which are funny enough that consumers seek them out notwithstanding, no recipient will pay for ads, and many people will pay to get rid of them. Netflix WITHOUT ads costs more than Netflix WITH ads, ad-blockers cost money, websites offer paid subscriptions to get rid of ads. Maryland has made the brilliant decision to tax something PEOPLE DESPISE.

    2.) The tax falls on big companies that can easily afford it, and they don't have an easy way to pass it on. They can't charge end users more for ads, because end users don't pay for ads, they sometimes pay to avoid them. Any tax that sticks to big companies is useful - if you add a tax to most products, even if the producer is responsible for the tax, they pass it on (if you charge a value-added tax that manufacturers have to pay, they add it to the price of the product, passing it to consumers). The best way to keep a tax applied to the intended target is to target a product that makes passing the tax on nearly impossible - and taxing a product with a negative value is the best possible way to do that.
    FileMakerFellerStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 8
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,319member
    I’ve got no problem with a tax on digital ads, but if digital ads (or digital anything) are being taxed while the non-digital version is (to quote the article) “expressly excluded from taxation” in the law, then Apple and the other tech companies have a VERY strong case for dismissal and refund in my view.

    Also, a state-by-state digital (whatever) tax isn’t going to work. It needs to be a federal tax, covering all US advertising online across the country.
    danoxwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.