The key issue in Oracle was whether a purchaser of software that was to be used in more than one state was required to issue a certificate indicating it would assume responsibility for apportioning and paying the tax to Massachusetts and the other states where the software was used at the time of purchase as required under the Commissioner’s regulation, or whether the purchaser could subsequently apportion the tax based on use and seek a refund through the general abatement process.
Source: KPMG
Latest Posts in "United States"
- How Sales Tax Compliance Fuels Essential Services: Lessons from the Bay Area Transit Crisis
- Kilpatrick, Alabama Implements New Local Sales, Use, Rental, and Lodgings Taxes Starting March 2026
- US Court Orders Refund of Unlawful Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling on IEEPA Duties
- Cordova, Alabama Increases City Sales and Use Tax Rates Effective March 2026
- Basware World Tour 2026: AI Innovations, Compliance Trends, and Networking in Chicago













