Colorado - Court enjoins tax department from enforcing use tax reporting requirements 

February 20: A state district court judge for the City and County of Denver on February 18, 2014, issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department of Revenue from enforcing the state’s use tax reporting requirements.

Use tax law

The use tax provisions, adopted in 2010, require sellers that do not collect tax on sales to Colorado purchasers to adhere to three reporting requirements:

  • Inform a buyer at the time of the purchase that use tax may be due and that Colorado requires purchasers to file returns and pay use tax directly to the state
  • Provide each Colorado purchaser with a statement by January 31 of each year showing the general types and volume of purchases made during the prior year and stating that the buyer may owe use tax on such purchases
  • File an annual report by March 31 with the Department showing the name and address of each Colorado purchaser and the general type and volume of purchases made by such customer


The party requesting the preliminary injunction, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), had previously obtained a permanent injunction in federal court. The federal court issued an injunction—that subsequently was lifted after a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Tax Injunction Act barred a taxpayer from seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of Colorado’s use tax reporting requirements in federal district court. After DMA’s loss in federal court, it re-filed suit in state court.

State court injunction

In the order issuing the preliminary junction, the state court judge cautioned that his conclusions were preliminary, were not “written in stone,” and may be “very different” after he has had more time to contemplate the issues.

The judge also noted that he disagreed with the federal court’s conclusion that the use tax reporting requirements were akin to a tax and went further to opine that the bright-line physical presence standard articulated in Quill did not apply to the imposition of the regulations.

Nevertheless, the judge determined that the reporting requirements appeared to be facially discriminatory because they apply only to retailers that do not collect and remit Colorado sales and use tax. In the judge’s view, the only retailers that do not collect and remit sales taxes are out-of-state retailers; thus, the reporting requirements are facially discriminatory.

In reaching this conclusion, the judge rejected the state’s argument that because in-state retailers must collect sales tax, the reporting requirements place out-of-state retailers at no more competitive disadvantage than in-state retailers. Collecting and remitting sales taxes is a different burden than reporting use tax information and, as such, the judge determined the two cannot be compared. The judge also cautioned that the state unlikely will be able to defeat a finding that the statute is per se invalid by proving that its legitimate interests cannot be adequately served by any reasonable, non-discriminatory means.

Having determined that the use tax reporting statute appeared to be facially unconstitutional, the judge declined to address whether the statute placed undue burdens on interstate commerce. He did, however, express doubt that DMA would prevail on the issue based on the current record.

Another concern he expressed was that the current evidence on the costs and benefits lumped the three reporting requirements together. In the judge’s view, the three requirements must be analyzed separately and he requested “counsel to present a clearer picture . . . about the costs and benefits of each requirement independent of the other two.”

What’s next?

The judge mandated that the parties hold a status conference by March 18, 2014, to discuss various procedural issues, including whether the case can proceed on summary judgment motions or whether it is necessary to conduct a trial.

KPMG observation

In the interim, affected retailers will not need to comply with the reporting requirements pending the outcome of the litigation.

For more information, contact a KPMG State and Local Tax professional:

Stephen Metz


Rod Martinez

303-382- 7703

©2014 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

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.

Direct comments, including requests for subscriptions, to
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.

Share this

Share this