On July 21, the Washington Department of Revenue (āDORā) issued its analysis of the Court of Appealsā decision from March 30, 2020, in LendingTree, LLC v. Depāt of Revenue, no. 80637-8-I (Wash. App. Ct. Mar. 30, 2020). Ā As set forth in the analysis, from the DORās perspective, the LendingTree court followed the existing Washington Business and Occupation tax (āB&Oā) attribution rules and guidance and did not create a new interpretive legal framework.[1]Ā Although the DOR lost the case, and the court held that LendingTreeās receipts could not be sourced based where its customersā customers were located, the DORās response suggests that they are factually distinguishing the case and will continue to attribute receipts to the customerās customer location if that is where it determines the benefit of the services occurs.
On Friday, July 24, 2020, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued its decision and order on the Pennsylvania Department of Revenueās motion to intervene in the highly-anticipated case of Synthes USA HQ, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 108 F.R. 2016.Ā The Synthes case is noteworthy not only because the Commonwealth Court addresses, for the first time, the Department of Revenueās hotly debated interpretation of the stateās former ācosts of performanceā statute, but also because…