By Kenneth R. Switzer, vice president and chief financial officer, Marco’s Franchising, LLC
11/14/12 02:30 PM ET

I’m the chief financial officer of Marco’s Franchising, a company founded and headquartered in Ohio that franchises Marco’s Pizza stores across the country. We don’t own the 300-plus stores that operate under our name nor do we pay their employees. So why should we be asked to pay corporate income taxes – in Wisconsin?

That’s a question I’ve been mulling since early this year when Wisconsin told us that we owed it back taxes. Its reasoning was bizarre. Because a single employee of ours visited the single store we franchise – but don’t own – in the state for less than 24 hours, Wisconsin says we must pay corporate taxes there.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated outrage for small businesses like mine. Franchisors are being hit with corporate tax assessments by multiple states. It’s the latest example of bureaucrats running amok – making a money grab in an already difficult economic climate.

My company’s saga started with a letter from Wisconsin’s Department of Revenue asking us for information on the lone Marco’s Pizza franchised location in Weston, Wisconsin. We dutifully complied. Next, a letter demanding that we follow Wisconsin’s corporate income tax laws, even though we have no property or employees there. They asked us to file Wisconsin tax returns for every year since the store opened (2007), and made it clear what would happen if we did not.

We needed to produce copies of pages from our corporate tax returns that detailed information about our entire business; not just the one store we franchise in Wisconsin. The ensuing hunt for documents and figuring out how to comply with Wisconsin laws ended up costing us over 40 man hours and thousands of dollars. Rather than racking up thousands more fighting the tax assessment we paid it. In the end, a great deal of effort and expense was expended – both by us and I presume the Wisconsin paper pushers – all for less than $1,000 in total taxes.

A few thousand dollars might not sound like a lot, but small businesses, especially those in the food industry, have to watch the bottom line very closely. Unexpected bills like this one add up. In fact, margins in food service are small as our costs have increased dramatically in the last few years; just like those at the grocery store and gas pump.  So the thought of being nickel and dimed by states across the country is disturbing.

Wisconsin is not alone in its quest to fill its coffers with the earnings of out-of-state operations. Among the other states reaching outside their borders for revenue are Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, South Carolina, Minnesota and Iowa. This phenomenon is a growing problem for the more than 825,000 franchise businesses that support nearly 18 million jobs across the U.S. In the last two years Marco’s created over 3,500 total jobs as a result of our growth. States such as Wisconsin should find way to recruit growing businesses, job creating business such as Marco’s Pizza rather than penalize

Fortunately, there’s a solution that can help protect businesses similar to Marco’s Pizza from becoming piggy banks for cash-hungry states. The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (BATSA), now pending in Congress, would establish a single, uniform standard for all states and therefore prevent unexpected tax judgments or fishing expeditions against small businesses. The Supreme Court has spoken on this topic. Nearly twenty years ago, it ruled that a state can tax out of state companies only if they have a “substantial” connection with that state. BATSA would codify that assertion. The legislation has bipartisan support and the support of this small businessman.

It’s rare for me to look to the federal government for solutions to help grow our business. But in this case, I see no other options. We want the chance to expand and create jobs. Serving one federal and one state taxing authority is fair and, as a good corporate citizen, we happily do so. But having to worry about 49 other tax masters is not something we can or should have to do as Marco’s Pizza grows.

Switzer is vice president and chief financial officer of Marco’s Franchising, LLC.

citation: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/267915-a-tax-grab-in-ohio-by-wisconsin-congress-should-pass-business-activity-tax-simplification-act

With Congress seemingly paralyzed by partisan gridlock, it’s good to see a Republican and a Democrat from a battleground state working together to promote the common good. That’s what Virginia Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R, and Bobby Scott, D, did last year when they co-sponsored the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit states from imposing corporate income taxes on companies with no physical presence within their borders. It is intended to protect businesses from tax grabs by 30 revenue-hungry states.

Corey Schroeder, CFO of Outdoor Living Brands — a small Richmond design firm that licenses intellectual property to franchisees — told The Washington Examiner that even though all 30 employees and all physical assets of his company are located in Virginia, he is forced to file corporate income tax returns in Arizona, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, at a cost exceeding $40,000 annually. Most small companies cannot afford the extensive legal costs needed to challenge this particularly brazen form of taxation without representation.

More and more state officials are targeting out-of-state businesses because it is less politically damaging than raising taxes on actual constituents, says Maggi Lazarus, an attorney representing the Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth. But the practice has led to many abuses.

For example, a small graphics company in Texas was forced to pay $115,000 in corporate income taxes to seven states in which it has no physical presence. New Jersey regularly impounds trucks traveling along its interstates until their out-of-state owners pay up. And a Florida boat manufacturer with no property, employees or bank accounts in Michigan was assessed $376,000 in gross receipts taxes on just $100,000 of annual sales in that state. This kind of interference in interstate commerce is exactly what the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent.

In his April 2011 testimony before a House subcommittee, Goodlatte noted the bill would “provide a ‘bright line’ test to clarify state and local authority to collect business activity taxes from out-of-state entities” without affecting states’ rights to impose taxes or go after companies that try to use shell subsidiaries or other tricks to avoid paying their fair share. The only difference is that their enforcement activity would be confined to companies that have an actual physical presence within their borders.

• Read article at The Washington Examiner

The Fiscal Times

August 14, 2012

Catherine Monson’s Texas-based graphics and visual communications company has 47 franchisees across the country. Each pays state income taxes where they operate. So it came as a surprise to Monson when seven states – none of which had a local franchisee sent stiff corporate income tax bills to her headquarters for the operation of the franchisees.

Although her business, Fastsigns International, has no employees, offices or other physical presence in any of those states, revenue-starved state tax officials used ambiguities in state laws to tax Monson’s business. She ended up paying more than $115,000 to Arizona, California, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

Now she is fending off efforts by other states that have come hunting for revenue. “More and more states are coming at us,” Monson told The Fiscal Times this week. “With this, there is no certainty. Every business needs certainty.” Monson is one of many small business owners who say states are aggressively imposing taxes regardless of whether the business has a physical presence in the state.

The effort by cash-strapped states to raise revenue from out-of-state companies has sparked a bi-partisan backlash in Washington where Virginia Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R, and Bobby Scott, D, sponsored legislation limiting states’ ability to impose corporate income taxes on companies without a meaningful physical presence in that state. The so-called “standard of nexus” would be uniform for all states.

While the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (BATSA) cleared the House Judiciary Committee last summer, it never received a vote in the full House. Its authors hope it will be considered along with other tax measures immediately after the November election or next year when Congress considers tax reform.

“The states are exploiting this situation,” said Jack O’Rourke, an attorney for a coalition of more than 100 companies that are pressing for congressional action to prevent these aggressive state tax forays.

State tax officials say the proposed legislation would allow businesses to continue to take advantage of states and in some cases avoid all tax liability by shifting their income to states with low or no income or other business taxes. “The new Federal framework would allow large, multi-state businesses to engage in tax structuring and planning that would enable them to avoid a significant part, if not all, of their state tax liabilities,” Utah state tax commissioner Bruce Johnson, speaking on behalf of the Federation of Tax Administrators, told the House Judiciary Committee last summer. Johnson said when out-of-state businesses don’t pay their share, small, local businesses bear the burden.

But that makes no sense to businesses that have been hit with state income taxes simply for driving through a state. LTL Service of Wisconsin, Inc., a small trucking company in South Milwaukee operated by Nancy Narr and her family, experienced that four years ago. In 2008, Narr’s business received a questionnaire from the state of Nebraska, asking whether it did business, had inventory, customers, property or income in the state.

While the firm answered no to all those questions, it acknowledged that its trucks had traveled through the state. That was enough for Nebraska to assess the company back taxes of $1,321, which Narr received three years later, with penalties for delinquent payments tacked on for 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Since the state waited three years to notify Narr of her delinquent taxes, Nebraska eventually waived the penalties and interest. But Narr says the $979 payment is still “infuriating.”

State tax collectors, especially in high tax states already dunning out-of-state businesses who sell into their states, believe companies like Fastsigns and LTL Services are fair game. According to the Federation of Tax Administrators, eight states estimate they would see major losses in revenue if they could no longer rely on corporate income taxes coming from out-of-state businesses. California and New Jersey each estimated they would lose more than $600 million in revenue by 2013 if the BATSA passed.

Tough economic times have motivated state tax officials to go after out-of-state businesses that have, at most, a tangential relationship to the state. The budget gaps that states have had to close for the fiscal year that began July 1 total $55 billion in 31 states, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The amount is smaller than in past years, but still very large by historical standards.

Court rulings and legislation generally have held that a company can be taxed on its income in a state if it has employees, plants or offices there. But what is far less clear is whether state tax departments have the authority to tax out-of-state companies for any business activity they conduct in the state – whether it is awarding a franchise, attending a trade show or simply driving through the state.

Absent any definitive ruling by the Supreme Court or legislative action by Congress, many states have recently pushed the envelope on the traditional nexus standard by advocating something they call “economic nexus.” That new standard says that if a company has a customer in its jurisdiction – even if the company is not physically present– that company is subject to that state’s corporate income tax.

The debate over whether states can impose taxes across state lines doesn’t stop at corporate income taxes. Taxes on Internet sales have also been under the spotlight. But unlike the corporate income tax, states attempting to collect sales taxes are hampered by a Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which said a company must have a physical presence in a state before it can impose sales taxes. There has not been a court decision setting a nexus for corporate income tax.

Maggi Lazarus, an attorney for the Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth, said the BATSA legislation is essential because the current anything-goes state tax policy has “created an enormous amount of uncertainty for businesses.”

And since most companies are small businesses that can’t afford to participate in expensive legal battles, they just agree to pay up. “I can’t afford to fight these things. So what do you do? You pay it.” Narr of LTL Services said. “They’re charging me to drive up and down their highways. It’s highway robbery. There’s no better way to put it.”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/08/14/Tax-Chasers-Target-Out-of-State-Businesses.aspx#page1

A tax nightmare began for Pete Vegas when a truck carrying his L.A. company’s food made a routine stop at a weigh station in Washington state.

It’s cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. And he’s now taking part in an intensifying battle over states’ rights to tax companies where they don’t have facilities or employees.

Business groups contend states should not have the authority to impose such taxes. State tax collectors say they have a right to collect billions of dollars in corporate income because that’s where the sales take place.

Continue reading article at Los Angeles Business Journal (Login Required)

By Emily Miller
The Washington Times
Thursday, July 26, 2012

States are so desperate for cash that they’re getting sneaky. Combine the sluggish economy with Obamacare’s expensive Medicaid expansion and spiraling public-sector union benefit payments, and the usual tricks just aren’t balancing the books anymore. That’s why some are looking to tap out-of-state businesses as a new source of revenue.

On Tuesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, held a hearing on a bill he said “has bipartisan support from members both on and off this committee” to let states tax Internet sales. The Marketplace Equity Act, sponsored by Rep. Steve Womack, Arkansas Republican, and Rep. Jackie Speier, California Democrat, would force out-of-state companies to collect sales taxes as long as a state’s tax policies are simplified and small sellers are exempt.

Traditional brick-and-mortar retailers and Internet companies have been at one another’s throats over the sales tax issue, but they are in full agreement regarding another form of remote revenue generation: imposing business taxes on firms that aren’t physically located in the state. Ever since the Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill v. North Dakota decision, state governments have only been allowed to tax firms with a “physical presence” within their borders. That has led state legislators to get creative on what constitutes a physical presence.

Eleven states will tax a company over a phone-number listing in the yellow pages. Fifteen states will tax companies that host their websites within the states’ borders. Last summer, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act, which would tighten the definition of physical presence so companies aren’t double- or triple-taxed.

Two Virginians, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte and Democratic Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, introduced the bill to ease the burden on commerce. “If businesses don’t know from state to state what the requirements are for taxes, they have to waste a lot of money on accountants and lawyers before deciding to expand their business into the state next door,” Mr. Goodlatte said in an interview with The Washington Times. “This establishes a clear, bright line test so you only pay corporate taxes if you go over that line. It would encourage businesses to expand across the entire country because they know the rules if they go into another state.”

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform explained why he strongly supports reining in the states and keeping them away from online commerce. “Goodlatte’s bill stops state legislators from taxing people who can’t vote them out of office, but the Internet tax bills let states reach across their borders to impose the burden of tax collection on out-of-state residents,” the anti-tax crusader told The Washington Times. “This is the second coming of taxation without representation in America.”

Naturally, Mr. Goodlatte’s bill is a threat to the extra cash these states are reaping, so they’ve kept it from a floor vote. Given the hardship businesses already face in this economy, House leaders need to make passing the bipartisan Goodlatte bill a priority.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Daily Tax Report, July 13, 2012
 
Congress needs to consider interstate taxation in any efforts to ease regulatory constraints on the maritime industry, a Florida boat manufacturer said July 12 during a hearing of the House Small Business Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight, and Regulations.
 
The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (H.R. 1439), also known as the BATSA bill, would eliminate “tax surprises” from states by creating a bright-line nexus standard for business activity taxes, said Mark Ducharme, vice president and chief financial officer of Monterey Boats, in Williston, Fla.
 
Ducharme was one of several maritime industry representatives testifying before the subcommittee, but the only witness who directly addressed state tax issues. He spoke on behalf of the Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth, an industry group working for enactment of the BATSA bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee in July 2011 (131 DTR G-1, 7/8/11).
 
“…we believe it is grossly unfair for any state to reach out and assert that simply passing through the state or selling a few products in the state allows a tax based on total, countrywide income.”
Mark Ducharme, Monterey Boats, vice president and chief financial officer
 
The BATSA bill would prohibit states from imposing net income and business activity taxes unless a business met a minimum physical presence requirement. To be subject to tax, a business would have to have employees, agents, or tangible property present in the state for 14 days or longer.
 
Ducharme testified that Michigan assessed his company for $376,000 in gross receipts taxes based on sales made in the state even though Monterey Boats had “no property, no sales offices, no bank accounts, no agents and not a single employee” in Michigan.
 
“Michigan claimed the authority to tax our sales based merely on the fact that Monterey Boats has customers in the jurisdiction, and considers nexus is achieved with only one day of contact with the state, including delivery in company owned, rented, leased, or borrowed trucks,” Ducharme said.
 
Ducharme said his company also had faced an assessment of $176,000 from New Jersey, which impounded his company’s truck and a shipment of boats until the taxes were paid.
 
Such tax bills and the legal fees required to fight them hinder the manufacturer, he said, making it difficult to plan for capital investment. Ducharme noted that Monterey’s employee base has already shrunk from 600 full-time employees to 250.
 
In a written statement, Ducharme added that, while it is fair for states to tax in-state businesses and those that regularly conduct business within their borders, “we believe it is grossly unfair for any state to reach out and assert that simply passing through the state or selling a few products in the state allows a tax based on total, countrywide income.”
 
The BATSA bill has been long opposed by state governments. Joe Huddleston, executive director of the Multistate Tax Commission, told BNA July 12 that arguments in favor of the bill are “disingenuous.”
 
It is simply untrue, he said, to maintain that states are somehow “out-of-bounds” or not engaging in “economic fair play” when they seek to tax economic activity that occurs within their borders.
 
Huddleston noted that 80 to 90 percent of small businesses in the United States are “single jurisdiction businesses,” operating within only one state.
 
Companies that can avoid paying state business activity taxes on interstate sales enjoy an unfair competitive advantage against those local businesses and leave them to carry the tax burden alone, Huddleston said.

Austin-American Statesman, Published: 10:46 a.m. Thursday, May 17, 2012

States are getting desperate for revenue, a fact I know firsthand. They hunt down out-of-state businesses like mine and slap them with massive tax assessments.

My company, Fastsigns, is a 27-year-old graphics and visual communications franchisor based in Carrollton. It’s a small business with 109 employees. So when a state unexpectedly sends us a tax bill for thousands of dollars — a state in which we don’t have any employees, offices or even a stick of inventory — it’s a very big deal and an expensive problem.

Seven states — Arizona, California, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin — have come after us in the last few years. We ended up writing more than $115,000 in checks to those states. And as I write this, an auditor from Washington state is sitting in our offices looking for more money to force us to hand over. It’s outrageous. We have almost nothing to do with those states. We have no direct sales there. As a franchisor, we collect royalties and fees from our franchisees across the country; we have no real assets in most states.

Yet these days, states are increasingly trying to tax our franchise licenses. We can’t plan for these taxes. We don’t know whether a state is going to send us a bill. And when one does, it’s often an unhappy surprise.

Fastsigns has paid these tax assessments because doing so is less expensive than than filing legal challenges. Litigation would require man hours and lawyers we don’t have.

But if the problem continues to get worse — and I think it will — we soon might not be able to write a check to every state that comes knocking. With the taxes we paid last year, we could easily have hired another employee. In this economy, shouldn’t we be encouraging businesses to grow rather than stripping them of funds for expansion?

We know we aren’t alone. There are more than 825,000 franchise businesses in the U.S., and I am sure that many of them are the targets of state tax collectors. Combined, these franchisors generate $2.1 trillion in revenue and employ nearly 18 million people. That’s significant.

Fastsigns has 470 franchised locations across the country; each of these dutifully pays federal and state income taxes to the states where they are located. And that should be enough. Can you imagine if we — as the franchisor — were subject to income taxation by every state in which we have a franchisee? I’m not sure we would survive.

Luckily, Congress has a solution. The bipartisan Business Activity Tax Simplification Act would stop states from imposing unfair, unjustified corporate income taxes on U.S. businesses. It would make clear that states can only impose corporate income and similar taxes on companies that have a meaningful physical presence in that state. It would set a uniform standard for all states so businesses wouldn’t have to wonder year to year what their tax liability might be.

The act, cosponsored by U.S. Reps. from Virginia Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, and Bobby Scott, a Democrat, cleared the House Judiciary Committee last summer and awaits a vote in the full House. The Supreme Court has made plain that a physical presence — not an economic presence — is needed for a state to impose corporate income taxes on companies like ours. Now Congress can put that into law.

Fastsigns is a small but growing company. We pay the appropriate taxes to the states where we have employees and property. We aren’t trying to avoid paying our fair share. But we believe we are being asked to pay more than our fair share.

Congress keeps talking about fixing the economy. Enacting the Business Activity Tax Simplifcation Act would be a good start.

Monson is the chief executive officer of Fastsigns.

The Washington Times, Tuesday, May 15, 2012

By Pete Vegas

As president of a national food company, I thought I had seen it all. Until, that is, the state of Washington decided to send me a $180,000 tax bill for simply visiting the the state. I understand that states are starved for revenue these days, but Washington has gone too far. Based on one visit over a seven-year period, it decided that my company, Sage V Foods, should be required to pay business and occupation taxes. Washington made that determination even though Sage V Foods has no employees, no property, no sales offices and no inventory in the state – nothing.

We are a relatively small business based in Los Angeles with fewer than 250 employees. We have production facilities in Arkansas and Texas. Our only real connection to Washington is the handful of customers to whom we sell our rice-based products. Our largest customer in Washington blends our products to create a special coating for french fries that keep them crisp under heat lamps. Almost all of those fries are shipped to fast food chains outside the state.

Washington has a sneaky way of catching companies in its tax trap. A few weeks after one of our trucks stopped at a weigh station during a routine delivery, we received a questionnaire in the mail from the Department of Revenue. The letter seemed innocuous enough, but it absolutely wasn’t.

It asked whether one of our employees visited the state once a year for business purposes. We answered yes, that was possible, and Washington pounced. It audited us and imposed seven years’ worth of taxes, interest and penalties. Washington claims Sage V Foods has a substantial connection to the state because we, on very rare occasions, cross its borders to do business. That’s outrageous.

I could have opted to pay the tax bill and move on as so many other small-business victims do. But I didn’t. The stakes are too high not only for my company but for hundreds if not thousands of other businesses. Each time a company is forced to pay up – or fight a baseless tax bill in court – it is reallocating resources that could be better used to hire new employees, expand operations or increase salaries.

I continue to appeal Washington’s tax assessment; I lost the first round so I decided to appeal my case to the Washington State Board of Tax Appeals. I know it’s an uphill battle. No one has won a similar appeal in years. But I am going to keep fighting because the assessment is blatantly unfair.

My war against Washington’s tax practices sometimes feels like a solo mission but it isn’t. Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that would make clear that a state can only tax an out-of-state business if that business has a “substantial” physical connection to that state. The proposal would set a uniform, bright-line standard for all states so companies would no longer have to wonder what the rules are.

The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Republican, and Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, a Democrat, passed the House Judiciary Committee last summer and awaits a vote in the full House. Support for the bill has been growing.

Sage V Foods began as a subsidiary of Comet Rice in 1992. Today, our ingredients can be found in every major grocery store in products from granola bars to baby cereal. We do $100 million in sales a year. We’ve always paid the appropriate taxes and played by the rules.

What Washington is doing to out-of-state companies such as mine is just plain wrong and has to stop. If tax collectors there are going after companies simply for crossing state lines, what’s next? Tax assessments for dialing the area code?

Pete Vegas is president of Sage V Foods.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact:  Erin Billings @ ebillings@bgrpr.com; 202-333-4936        

Washington, D.C., April 25, 2012 – Members of the Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth today urged the Senate Finance Committee to support the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (BATSA) to stop states from imposing unfair and unjustified corporate income taxes on U.S. businesses.

BATSA, sponsored by Virginia Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R) and Bobby Scott (D), is one of the few pieces of bipartisan legislation that Congress could pass this year to create jobs and improve economic growth. It would clarify that states can only impose corporate income and similar taxes on companies that have a meaningful physical presence in that state. The measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee last summer and awaits a vote in the full House.

“The Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth believes the time is now for Congress to act on BATSA to ensure a clear, uniform standard for state corporate income taxation,” said the Coalition’s Chairman, Jack O’Rourke. “American businesses are being blindsided with outrageous tax bills from states where they don’t even have any property or employees. BATSA can fix this. We respectfully ask the Senate Finance Committee to get behind this important legislation.”

The Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth, which represents the interests of trade associations, tax groups and large and small businesses nationwide, was founded in 2007 and reorganized earlier this year. It believes BATSA is one of the most important bills Congress could tackle this year to improve the economy and the fairness of the tax system.

“More and more, states are trying to impose corporate income or similar taxes on U.S. businesses located outside of their borders,” O’Rourke said. “These companies are put in a no-win situation: pay a baseless tax bill or fight it in court. Congress should correct this so that companies can grow and hire, rather than be forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars in unjustified taxes and litigation costs.”

The Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth appreciates the opportunity to be part of today’s Senate Finance Committee debate on state taxation. It believes BATSA is a vital part of any Congressional tax reform effort.

More information about the Coalition and BATSA can be found at: http://www.interstatetaxfairness.com/.

# # #

SOURCE: The Coalition for Interstate Tax Fairness and Job Growth.

• Download the press release (pdf)
• Read Noteworthy Testimony from April 25 Senate Finance Hearing on State Taxation

Richmond Times-Dispatch

April 25, 2012

I’m the chief financial officer of a small business here in Richmond, but sometimes I feel like a piggy bank for every state in the union that needs some extra cash.

The latest state that came knocking was Wisconsin. Last year, it sent my company — Outdoor Living Brands –— a tax bill for a few hundred dollars. We paid up even though we don’t have a single employee, piece of inventory or even an office there.

Sadly, that’s the way the tax system seems to work these days.

Wisconsin, in fact, is the eighth state that has dinged us for tax payments. The others are Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, South Carolina, Minnesota and, of course, Virginia.

I certainly understand Virginia. It’s where our headquarters is and where our 30 employees work hard to earn the $4.6 million in revenue that we’ve lately been earning each year.

Continue Reading