Improper Sales Tax Charges
How does sales tax work with software, since it sells under different terms, such as licenses? The complaint for this class action alleges that Claris International, Inc. wrongly charges sales tax on its software products. The complaint alleges that Claris has violated Illinois state laws, including the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, among other things.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is paying out about a half a million dollars, in cash and coupons, to settle a lawsuit alleging it charged too much sales tax on discounted items. The complaint alleged it charged sales tax on the Murphy-funded portion of the discounted price at Murphy USA and Murphy Express stores in 24 states.
Doordash, Inc. picks food up from restaurants and delivers it to customers. The complaint for this class action alleges that the company charges customers sales taxes even in states where there is no sales tax, thereby taking more money for itself.
You wouldn’t think that a company as large as Walmart (or Sam’s Club) would scrape extra pennies from customers in the guise of sales taxes, but that’s what the complaint for this class action alleges. It claims that, for sale items, Walmart calculates the sales tax based on the original price of the item, instead of on the actual price paid by the customer.
The complaint for this class action alleges that LLR, Inc. and LuLaRoe, LLC charged customers sales taxes on merchandise in jurisdictions where sales taxes are not collected.
Walmart is settling a class action alleging that when customers bought items with coupons, it charged them sales tax on the original price of the item rather than on the price they actually paid for it. The complaint claims that Pennsylvania state law requires retailer to deduct the value of the coupons before calculating sales tax.
This settlement resolves a class action against Dell, Inc., Dell Marketing Limited Partnership, Dell Catalog Sales Limited Partnership, BancTec, Inc., and QualxServ, LLC. The class action claimed that customers were improperly charged sales tax or use tax on optional maintenance agreements, in violation of North Carolina laws.
When plaintiff Luis Cabassa traded in his old GoPro camera for a discount on a new one, he expected to be charged sales tax only on the amount of the sale—that is, the amount he was paying for the new device. Instead, the complaint for this class action alleges, GoPro charged him sales tax on the full amount—the amount he paid plus the value of his old device. The complaint claims that a discount given for a trade-in item is called a “dealer’s discount” under Florida law, and that the law requires GoPro to collect sales tax on the final, discounted price only. According to the complaint, the discounted amount is not taxable.
The complaint for this class action alleges that retailer Forever 21 charged customers sales taxes on clothing that should have been exempt from it based on the purchaser’s send-to address. Plaintiff Laura Togut claims that she bought about twenty items of clothing from Forever 21’s website, with each item priced below $110, for a total of $283.40. The items were delivered to her New York City address, the complaint says, so the sale should have been exempt from sales tax, but Forever 21 charged an extra $22.90 for sales tax, bringing Togut’s order to $306.30.