Maryland Digital Advertising Tax Invalidated – Now What?

Charles Maniace
October 17, 2022

In a development that should be a surprise to almost no one, a state district court judge invalidated Maryland’s digital advertising tax, which was slated to apply as of January 1, 2022, with the first filing and remittance due on December 31, 2022.

By way of recap, in 2021, Maryland passed legislation applying a special gross receipts tax on revenue earned from the provision of digital advertising services. “Digital advertising” being defined as “advertisement services on a digital interface, including advertisements in the form of banner advertising, search engine advertising, interstitial advertising, and other comparable advertising services.” The bill contained a formula that would determine how much of a particular company’s advertising revenue should be apportioned to Maryland and the applicable tax rate was determined based on the taxpayer’s global annual gross revenue.

Challenges were immediately filed in both federal court and the Maryland state court system. Fundamentally, all the lawsuits contend that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment and the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA).

Even for a sales tax novice, the PITFA challenge is easy to understand. Under PITFA, states are precluded from taxing commerce that takes place over the internet in a way that’s more expansive than the same type of transactions taking place through traditional commerce channels. In other words, states can’t discriminate against internet commerce. Therefore, since Maryland does not tax traditional advertising services (e.g., billboards, magazine ads, etc.), PITFA precludes them from taxing internet advertising.

When the bill was passed, the Maryland Attorney General authored what can only fairly be described as a contorted analysis through which he concluded that the law could pass Constitutional muster. He said that the tax could be viewed as non-discriminatory against internet commerce since it applies equally no matter how the internet advertising might be purchased (over the phone, in person, over the internet, etc.). Even though a written order has yet been issued by the district court judge, it’s clear that this argument did not hold sway as the court ruled the law indeed violated PITFA.

What does this mean for other states’ digital advertising taxes?

While this lower court ruling will undoubtedly be appealed and the federal court action has yet to reach its conclusion, the interesting question right now is what this decision will mean to other states considering similar measures. In the last year or so, the question about how to apply taxes to digital transactions has received heightened attention across the country. Just last year, there were proposals in 17 states that would have expanded taxes on “big tech” including digital advertising (like Maryland’s), social media advertising and data mining.

Proposals to tax digital advertising have support on both sides of the political aisle. On the left, the perception exists that technology companies earn enormous profits and some of those profits should be used to fund education. On the right (at least in some quarters) there is a desire to punish tech firms for “de-platforming” our former president. From a non-partisan perspective, an argument could be made that digital advertising should be taxed. Companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter don’t make money from licensing software and services. We don’t pay to use Google and we’d probably have a collective freak-out if Google decided to charge people on a per-search basis. Rather, these companies offer their services for free and make their money by selling advertising. So, where other technology companies would pay sales tax on their software license fees or other charges, companies relying on advertising for the bulk of their revenue escape taxation. However, the plain and simple fact remains that PITFA precludes taxing digital advertising unless equivalent taxes against traditional advertising are likewise levied.

While none of these other bills were enacted into law apart from Maryland, things got close in states such as Connecticut and in the District of Columbia. It seems likely that states will try again in current and future legislative sessions. However, it likewise seems clear that states must consider the constitutional infirmities of the Maryland law as they work to draft new bills to generate additional tax revenue from tech giants.

Take Action

Curious about sales tax and digital assets? Check out our ebook to learn more.

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.


Charles Maniace

Chuck is Vice President –Regulatory Analysis & Design at Sovos, a global provider of software that safeguards businesses from the burden and risk of modern tax. An attorney by trade, he leads a team of attorneys and tax professionals that provide the tax and regulatory content that keeps Sovos customers continually compliant. Over his 20-year career in tax and regulatory automation, he has provided analysis to the Wall Street Journal, NBC, Bloomberg and more. Chuck has also been named to the Accounting Today list of Top 100 Most Influential People four times.
Share This Post

North America ShipCompliant
May 25, 2023
Out-of-State Breweries Gain Self Distribution, DtC Rights in Oregon

Under a settlement agreement, breweries located outside of Oregon now have more options for selling into the Beaver State, including direct-to-consumer (DtC) shipping and self-distribution to retailers. The settlement arose out of a lawsuit filed by a group of Washington breweries last year challenging Oregon laws that limited beer self-distribution to in-state breweries and DtC […]

EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
May 24, 2023
VAT and Art: What you need to know

Significant inflation increases have impacted most of the world’s economies, with the UK still above 10% in 2023. This increase means a reduction in the purchasing power of consumers. Together with increases in the cost of raw materials, this has created uncertainty regarding growth of entire industrial departments and reduced profit margins for companies. The […]

North America ShipCompliant
May 23, 2023
Top 5 Myths Surrounding Retailer Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping

By Tom Wark, Executive Director, National Association of Wine Retailers Politics breed myths. This has always been the case as politics is, at its most fundamental, a form of storytelling. So it should be no surprise that myths have arisen as various elements of the wine industry have fought against consumers and specialty wine retailer seeking […]

May 23, 2023
IPT: Location of Risk and Territoriality

Much of the discussion on the Location of Risk triggering a country’s entitlement to levy insurance premium tax (IPT) and parafiscal charges focuses on the rules for different types of insurance. European Union (EU) Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) set out these rules. However, a related topic of growing importance in this area concerns territoriality, i.e. […]

Asia Pacific E-Invoicing Compliance
May 23, 2023
Japan: New e-Invoice Retention Requirements

Japan’s new e-invoice retention requirements are part of the country’s latest Electronic Record Retention Law (ERRL) reform. Along with measures such as the Qualified Invoice System (QIS) and the possibility to issue and send invoices electronically via PEPPOL, Japan is implementing different indirect tax control measures, seeking to reduce tax evasion and promote digital transformation. […]