The Florida Department of Revenue issued a Technical Assistance Advisement concluding that a taxpayerâs online learning services were subject to the stateâs Communications Services Tax (âCSTâ) as a âvideo serviceâ (statutorily defined as âthe transmission of video, audio, or other programming service to a purchaser âŚâ and includes âdigital videoâ), while the taxpayerâs sales of an internal email service were nontaxable âinformation services.â  Florida Dep’t of Revenue, Technical Assistance Advisement 22A19-002R (Oct. 7, 2022).Â
The taxpayer operated an online professional networking platform that allowed its members to connect and explore career opportunities. The taxpayerâs internal email service allowed members to send each other internal email messages. The taxpayerâs online learning service provided educational video courses available to stream or download.Â
The Department concluded that the taxpayerâs sales of the internal email service were nontaxable âinformation servicesâ (which are statutorily excluded from the CST) because the purchaserâs âprimary purposeâ was to receive data or information.
However, the Department concluded that the online learning service was subject to CST because it âinvolvedâ the transmission of digital video.  The taxpayer asserted that the online learning service should be characterized as a tax-exempt information service and the Department did not disagree that this may be the underlying purpose of the service. However, the Department stated that the âthe underlying purpose of the video service is irrelevantâ because there is no âprimary purposeâ test in determining whether something is a âvideo serviceâ for CST purposes (in contrast to determining whether something is a nontaxable âinformation serviceâ).
In recent years, we have seen the Department take progressively broader interpretations of âvideo serviceâ as it attempts to expand the scope of the CST.  The Departmentâs conclusion here that the online learning service is a taxable video service merely because it âinvolvesâ the transmission of a digital video appears to be an expansion of the statutory language (âinvolveâ is not a statutory term) and a narrow view of the nature of the particular transaction at issue. Indeed, it is unclear why the Department believes a âprimary purposeâ test should apply only to nontaxable âinformation serviceâ determinations and not to other taxability determinations under the CST statute. Furthermore, the Department attempts to override the âprimary purposeâ test for nontaxable information services by concluding that any service involving elements of a âvideo serviceâ is taxable, regardless of whether it could otherwise qualify as a nontaxable information service. This is a questionable interpretation of the statutory language.  Â
Contact the Authors: Maria Eberle, Mark Yopp and Dmitrii Gabrielov