The place to find business sales tax information

— as well as solutions, services and jobs!

Cloud Computing and Sales Tax - Tax Variations and Issues

author photo of Annette Nellen

Recent actions in two states - Pennsylvania and Vermont, are reminders of the challenges of applying our mostly 20th century tax laws to 21st century transactions. They are also reminders of the need to fully understand the facts (and technical operation) of any transaction and to carefully read and verify the meaning of the words used in the taxing statute.

Generally, state sales tax applies to transfers of tangible personal property. Many states have expanded to include some services and digital items. Software licenses challenged sales tax rules because of its intangible nature (although some view it as tangible if in a box) and the fact that it is usually licensed rather than sold outright. Software licenses are often not problematic today because states have clarified the treatment via changed statutes, tax agency guidance or court cases.

The new challenge is cloud computing. While there are variations on forms of cloud computing, let's focus on the situation where a customer can access and use software while on the seller's computer (server). Nothing is transferred; the customer just pays for use of the software. (To get a better understanding of cloud computing and its variations, I highly recommend information from NIST, such as this 1-page document.)

Well, use without possession sounds like a service and most states don't tax services. But, the result seems to be the same for both the cloud computing transaction and the purchase of a software license where it is loaded onto your own computer - you get use of the functionality of the software. So, some states reach a result that the cloud computing transaction is subject to sales tax. For example, per Indiana Information Bulletin #8 (Nov. 2011):

"Prewritten computer software maintained on computer servers outside of Indiana also is subject to tax when accessed electronically via the Internet (i.e., “cloud computing”). The accessing of prewritten computer software by Indiana residents constitutes a transfer of the software because the customers gain constructive possession and the right to use, control, or direct the use of the software."

In contrast, earlier this year Kansas issued Opinion Letter O-2012-001 (2/6/12) holding:

"Charges for hosted software services are not taxable as sales of “prewritten computer software” under K.S.A. 79-3603(s) because the software that is installed on a remote server isn’t delivered to subscribers or installed on their computers. The service provider has title and possession of the software. ... Such software is not taxable as a sale of prewritten software so long as the software is not billed to subscriber as a separate line item charge."

Well, back to Pennsylvania and Vermont ...

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue issued Ruling No. SUT-12-001 (5/31/12) on cloud computing. It holds that "accessing taxable canned software is taxable when the user is located in Pennsylvania." Despite that holding, a reading of Statute 31.1 sounds like sales tax primarily applies to sales or use of tangible personal property. The ruling though refers to the Tax Reform Code of 1971 Section 7202(o)(1) which defines "use" as "The exercise of any right or power incidental to the ownership, custody or possession of tangible personal property and shall include, but not be limited to transportation, storage or consumption." That still seems like a stretch since there is no ownership, custody or possession or tangible personal property.

The Pennsylvania ruling also provides that there is no sales tax owed if the end user is located outside of the state, "even if the cloud server that hosts the software is located in Pennsylvania." That seems to support that the Department's theory/approach that access to the software via the "cloud" is just as if the customer had purchased it at or from a Pennsylvania store.

In May, the Vermont legislature passed and the Governor signed H-782 to impose a tax moratorium on charges for remotely accessed software after 2006 and before 7/1/13. “Charges for remotely accessed software” means charges for the right to access and use prewritten software run on underlying infrastructure that is not managed or controlled by the consumer or a related company."

Apparently, the legislation stems from a statement in Vermont Technical Bulletin 54 - "Prewritten software that is licensed for use and available from a remote server is also taxable." That is not exactly the same as all cloud computing transactions though because there is not always a license agreement and the license is more like a transfer than is a cloud computing service. (For a bit more on the Vermont issue, see this 4/2/12 BloombergBusinessweek article.)

So, apparently there will be more discussion on the cloud computing topic in Vermont. AND, H-782 that was enacted also calls for creation of a 7-member Sales and Use Tax Study Committee to "examine the sustainability of the sales and use tax in the context of Vermont's changing economy." "Specifically, the committee shall consider:
(A) the taxation of software, platform, and infrastructure as services accessed remotely;
(B) the taxation and sourcing of sales of tangible personal property made via the internet; and
(C) the feasibility of taxing services more broadly than under current law."

The report is due to the legislature by January 15, 2013.

That all sounds good as most state sales tax systems are still taxing the 20th century economy which leaves them with an eroding base that tends to cause the tax to be inequitable, inefficient and with too high of a rate. (For more on that, please check here and here.) Not specifically mentioned, but also a 21st century item to consider for adding to the sales tax base are digital downloads purchased by consumers (not businesses).

The bottom line ...

  • States need to devote time to analyzing the variety of cloud computing transactions and determine how existing statutes apply to them. Guidance should be issued with the answers.
  • Legislatures need to determine how statutes need to be updated to properly address taxation of cloud computing services, with an emphasis cloud transactions of individual consumers.
  • Taxpayers and practitioners need to carefully analyze the facts of any cloud computing arrangement to understand the legal arrangement among the parties, whether anything was transferred and how to characterize what the customer is getting. The tax law should be carefully reviewed to see how it applies.

What cloud computing tax issues have you encountered? Any clear and correct guidance you have come across?

Other recent “Sales Tax Policy - Tales & Trends” posts by Annette Nellen, CPA, ESQ:

NOTE: All blog content, comments, and participation subject to disclaimer at bottom of page.


7 Responses to Cloud Computing and Sales Tax - Tax Variations and Issues

  • Posted by Jay on April 27, 2016 1:03pm:

    Does anyone know is cloud computing is taxable in the following states:
    AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IL, MD, MA, NE, NY, NC, VT and VA?

    Thank you

    • Posted by Annette on April 27, 2016 3:58pm:

      Some states are still figuring out how cloud computing is taxed. It is also important to review the terms of service to understand if it is more of a service transaction or software transfer. Check the state tax agency website. You should also find some resources at

  • Posted by Rick on April 28, 2013 10:21pm:

    Cloud computing is the use of computing resources (hardware and software) that are delivered as a service over a network (typically the Internet). For example, email. The name comes from the common use of a cloud-shaped symbol as an abstraction for the complex infrastructure it contains in system diagrams. Cloud computing entrusts remote services with a user's data, software and computation.^

  • Posted by Corner on January 28, 2013 3:10am:

    [...] 15 Ind. Dept. Rev., Information Bull. #8 (Nov. 2011), available at, quoted in Annette Nellen, Cloud Computing and Sales Tax – Tax Variations and Issues, Sales Tax Support, Blog (July 10, 2012), [...]

  • Posted by Overcast on August 1, 2012 4:44am:

    [...] Note- I would like to thank Annette Nellen, whose blog post brought this issue to my attention. [...]

  • Posted by Cloud on July 16, 2012 7:09pm:

    [...] The new challenge is cloud computing. While there are variations on forms of cloud computing, let's focus on the situation where a customer can access and use ……/cloud-computing-and-sales-tax-v… [...]

  • Posted by Gary on July 12, 2012 2:02am:

    Sales/use taxes are a mess. Not only Cloud computing but everything connected with Internet sales. Our federal system results in the confusing creation of multiple state laws, regulations, and judicial rulings. Since this is an issue involving interstate commerce, perhaps we need a federal law that preempts state/local law and make clear what and what is not taxable. Such legislation would also allow for the provision of clear uniform definitions.
    Interestingly, Alabama has struggled with the taxation of software. It appears to me (although I am no lawyer), that Alabama Sales/Use taxes would apply to Cloud Computing charges. To wit, Rule 810-6-1-.37, Computer Hardware and Software, includes, among other things, these definitions:
    (4) [In part] Canned computer software is tangible personal property; and, on and after March 1, 1997, the retail sale or rental of canned computer software is subject to the sales, use, or rental tax, whether such transaction was affected by a transfer of title, or of possession or of both, or a license to use or consume. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the licensing of canned computer software is considered a retail sale, and not a rental, and is subject to sales or use tax.
    (5) [In part] The term "custom software programming" as used in this regulation shall mean software programs created specifically for one user and prepared to the special order of that user. The term "custom software programming" also includes programs that contain pre-existing routines, utilities, or other program components that are integrated in a unique way to the specifications of a specific purchaser. ... Custom software programming is not subject to tax regardless of the manner or medium of transfer to the customer since the charge for the custom software programming is a charge for professional services and the manner or medium of transfer is considered incidental to the sale of the service.
    The above results from a 1996 Alabama Supreme Court ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Mobile and County of Mobile. In that case, the Court cited a Louisiana case, Barthelemy, 643 So.2d at 1246, that said, among other things:
    (1) "[A]s computer software became more prevalent in society, and as courts' knowledge and understanding of computer software grew, later cases saw a shift in courts' attitudes towards the taxability of computer software, and courts began holding computer software to be tangible for sales, use and property tax purposes."
    (2) "The software itself, i.e, the physical copy, is not merely a right or an idea to be comprehended by the understanding. The purchaser of the computer software neither desires nor receives mere knowledge, but rather receives a certain arrangement of matter that will make his or her computer perform a desired function. This arrangement of matter, physically recorded on some tangible medium, constitutes a corporeal body."
    Based on the above conclusions, the Court said that the City of Mobile and County of Mobile could tax computer software. However, since the Court overturned a previous ruling in State v. Central Computer Services, Inc., 349 So.2d 1160 (Ala.1977) that found computer software to be an intangible, the local jurisdictions were allowed to collect the taxes on a prospective basis only.
    In my opinion, Alabama citing a court case of a civil law state, Louisiana, seems inappropriate. Chief Justice Hooper in his dissent to Barthelemy also noted this anomaly by stating: "The civil law precedent of Louisiana is inapplicable to the common law precedent of Alabama."
    Chief Justice Hooper also said, "However, whether the software is "canned" or not, the purchaser is primarily buying the intangible knowledge on the software, and the software is incidental to the purchase. The fact that it is presumed that the information will be "conveyed by way of a tangible medium" does not make the purchase primarily one of tangible personal property." I agree.

Submit a comment or question - only your first name will appear


Access to any portion of is contingent upon your acceptance of our Terms of Use. This Web Site and content provided by STS Publishing, LLC and its third party content providers, including, but not limited to information, documents, forms, comments, advice and opinions, is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for professional advice, nor does the use of this Web Site constitute a professional-client relationship. The Web-Site also includes advertisements, directory listings, job postings and links to third party web sites, all of which are provided for your convenience only and in no way constitute a referral, endorsement, or warranty by of any product or service provided by such third parties. All content is provided “as is” with no guarantee regarding accuracy, suitability, or timeliness. Your reliance on any content accessed on or through the Web Site, or on any product or service provider is strictly at your own risk.