Quick Results
Publications

SPOTLIGHT ON KENTUCKY: Federal Appeals Court Upholds OTC Defense to Kentucky Tax Claim

Alert
Share

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on December 22, 2009 in favor of on-line travel companies (OTC) under Kentucky law. The decision upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the claims of Kentucky counties for unpaid transient room taxes on the OTC mark-up of hotel room rates. In Louisville/Jefferson Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al, the federal appeals court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the Kentucky legislation authorizing the taxes. The typical arrangement for OTC wholesale model pricing, where the OTC remits to the hotel the negotiated wholesale room rate and the local taxes calculated on that rate, was challenged by two counties seeking the tax on the spread or margin netted by the OTC.

At issue was the language of the Kentucky transient room tax, which is imposed on "the rent for every occupancy of a suite, room, or rooms, charged by all persons, companies, corporations, or other like or similar persons, groups or organizations doing business as motor courts, motels, hotels, inns or like or similar accommodations businesses. " Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 91A.390(1). The statute predates the OTC merchant model, a fact noted by both courts. Instead, the case focused on whether the OTC provider is an accommodations business under Kentucky law. The Sixth Circuit relied on a 2004 Kentucky Court of Appeals decision that upheld the transient room tax levied on rental revenues from furnished apartments rented to corporate customers on an extended stay basis. The Kentucky tax is not consumer-based, the court held. Instead, the tax is imposed on the accommodations business operator. Unlike the corporate lodging service provider, "the OTCs in the present case do not physically control or furnish the rooms they advertise." The court observed that OTCs do not "supply" or "provide" rooms to guests "because they take no part in making the room physically available."

Both courts also rejected an expansive reading of the enabling tax statute based on Kentucky (and general) principles of statutory construction. Tax statutes with qualifications are read narrowly, according to their plain meaning, and not construed expansively. This statute's use of restrictive language limited the tax to taxpayers imbued with "ownership and physical control over the rooms for rent [which] are simply shared characteristics of motor courts, motels, hotels, and inns." The trial and appeals courts refused to expand the meaning of the phrase "like or similar accommodations businesses" to parties not in physical possession or control of lodging premises, like OTCs. The Sixth Circuit followed a recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit construing a North Carolina tax statute to a similar result, holding no liability for the OTCs on the transient room tax. The court contrasts the language of the Kentucky transient room tax statute with a transient room tax imposed on "the charge to the public" as was the subject of the recent ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court construing the city of Columbus statute to an opposite result.

The federal appeals court concluded that other arguments under Kentucky law for challenging the transient room tax statute would be unavailing, and the Kentucky law presumption in favor of a taxpayer was not overcome by the municipalities. So until the Kentucky General Assembly changes the wording of the transient tax statute or the ruling is overturned by the entire Sixth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, the merchant model survives intact in the Bluegrass State.

For more information about this recent decision, please contact any of the following Baker Donelson attorneys:


Nashville, Tennessee
Carolyn W. Schott 615.726.7312 cschott@bakerdonelson.com
John B. Burns 615.726.5599 jburns@bakerdonelson.com
Joel R. Buckberg 615.726.5639 jbuckberg@bakerdonelson.com

Memphis, Tennessee
William H.D. Fones Jr. 901.577.2247 wfones@bakerdonelson.com
Adam C. Flock 901.577.8167 aflock@bakerdonelson.com
Eugene Podesta 901.577.2213 gpodesta@bakerdonelson.com

Chattanooga, Tennessee
Carl E. Hartley 423.756.2010 chartley@bakerdonelson.com
Thomas A. Caldwell 423.209.4104 tcaldwell@bakerdonelson.com

Knoxville, Tennessee
Angelia M. Nystrom 865.971.5170 anystrom@bakerdonelson.com

Birmingham, Alabama
Thomas J. Mahoney Jr. 205.250.8346 tmahoney@bakerdonelson.com
Vincent J. Schilleci 205.244.3827 vschilleci@bakerdonelson.com

Jackson, Mississippi
Stacy E. Thomas 601.351.2484 sthomas@bakerdonelson.com
David P. Webb 601.969.4678 dwebb@bakerdonelson.com

Atlanta, Georgia
Michael M. Smith 404.589.3419 mmsmith@bakerdonelson.com
Michael S. Evans 404.221.6517 mevans@bakerdonelson.com

Macon, Georgia
Charles L. Ruffin 404.221.6531 cruffin@bakerdonelson.com

New Orleans, Louisiana
Robert W. Nuzum 504.566.5209 rnuzum@bakerdonelson.com
Nancy S. Degan 504.566.5249 ndegan@bakerdonelson.com

Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Alton E. Bayard III 225.381.7019 abayard@bakerdonelson.com

Washington, D.C.
James W. McBride 202.508.3467 jmcbride@bakerdonelson.com
Scott D. Smith 202.508.3430 sdsmith@bakerdonelson.com

Email Disclaimer

NOTICE: The mailing of this email is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Anything that you send to anyone at our Firm will not be confidential or privileged unless we have agreed to represent you. If you send this email, you confirm that you have read and understand this notice.
Cancel Accept