Maryland’s legislature on February 12, 2021, voted to override the governor’s veto of legislation imposing a new tax on digital advertising. Accordingly, the digital advertising services tax measures are enacted and effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020.
Maryland is the first state to adopt a specific tax on the revenues derived from digital advertising. However, there are similar proposals under consideration in Connecticut, Indiana, Montana, and New York.
House Bill 732 imposes a new tax on the gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in Maryland.
House Bill 732 does not provide guidance on how a taxpayer determines which state digital advertising service revenues are attributed to. The Comptroller is directed to adopt regulations to provide how this will be determined.
The tax applies to persons that have:
The rate of tax is determined based on the person’s global annual gross revenues.
Every person subject to the tax that is expected to have annual gross revenues from digital advertising services in Maryland of over $1 million is required to file an annual declaration of estimated tax and make quarterly estimated tax payments.
House Bill 732 providing the new tax on digital advertising gross revenues was approved in March 2020 shortly before the General Assembly adjourned.
The governor subsequently vetoed the bill, citing concerns about imposing new taxes on businesses in the midst of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The Maryland Senate joined the House of Delegates and voted on February 12, 2021, to override the governor’s veto. As such, House Bill 732 is now law in Maryland, and the new digital advertising services tax is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020.
Two “cross-filed bills”—Senate Bill 787 and House Bill 1200—have been proposed that would adopt certain technical corrections to House Bill 732.
The bills also include a provision prohibiting persons subject to the digital advertising tax from directly passing the cost of the tax onto their customers by means of a separate fee, surcharge or line-item.
A hearing is scheduled for Senate Bill 787 on February 17, 2021, and a hearing on House Bill 1200 is scheduled for February 26, 2021.
Maryland is the first state in the United States to adopt a tax on digital advertising services. Opponents of the measure have raised several potential challenges to the tax, including that the tax would violate the “permanent” Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA). The ITFA prohibits states and localities from imposing multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. A “discriminatory tax” includes a tax imposed by a state or local subdivision thereof on electronic commerce that “is not generally imposed and legally collectible by such State or such political subdivision on transactions involving similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means.” Because Maryland does not impose tax on traditional advertising services, the new tax potentially violates the ITFA’s prohibition against discriminatory taxes.
Opponents of the measure have also noted that in addition to failing to provide guidance on how digital advertising revenues will be attributed to any particular state, the definitions in the bill are overly vague and unworkable. Observers believe it is almost certain that legal challenges to the new digital advertising tax will be filed in the near future.
Because the tax is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2020, businesses generating revenues from digital advertising need to consider the following: (1) are they a person subject the tax; (2) do they have the requisite revenues from digital advertising attributed to Maryland (absent clear guidance as to how this determination is made); (3) does the “person” with the digital advertising revenues have the requisite global annual revenues; and (4) is there more than one person that may be subject to tax on certain digital advertising revenues (e.g., website or app owner, ad networks or brokers). Companies need to continue to monitor and consider any legal challenges filed in response to House Bill 732.
For more information, contact a KPMG State and Local Tax professional:
Leah Durner | +1 202 533 5542 | email@example.com
Audra Mitchell | +1 816 802 5456 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Sarah McGahan |+1 713 449 9748 | email@example.com
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.