Massachusetts Eases Up on its Advance Payment Requirement

Charles Maniace
December 20, 2021

In a surprise move, the Massachusetts legislature swiftly adopted a new law easing the sales and use tax compliance burden of their new “Advance Payment” requirement that was imposed on certain large taxpayers beginning last April.

As initially reported in December 2020 and then again in March 2021, Massachusetts created a set of unique filing requirements, which it refers to as “Advance Payment.” Under these new rules, any taxpayer whose cumulative Massachusetts sales and use tax liability exceeded $150,000 in the immediately preceding year is now required to make a sales tax payment on the 25th of the month equal to actual tax collected between the 1st and 21st of that same month. The Advance Payment need not be accompanied by a tax return. While there are no shortage of states requiring sales tax “prepayments” from certain taxpayers, the Massachusetts requirement to compute and remit actual tax collected is far more challenging and disruptive to existing compliance processes. 

However, just before the new requirement was slated to take effect, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) granted taxpayers a short partial reprieve. When the DOR published the final version of Technical Information Release (TIR) 21-4 detailing the mechanics of the new rule, it added what could best be characterized as a temporary “safe harbor.” Specifically, so long as an obligated taxpayer remitted a payment on the 25th of the month equal to 80% of the tax collected in the prior month, the state would automatically waive the 5% penalty for underpayment of taxes. But the TIR was clear that safe harbor would only extend for the remainder of calendar year 2021. Starting in 2022, taxpayers would be responsible for knowing exactly how much tax they collected between the 1st and the 21st and remitting precisely that amount to the DOR.

As the calendar turned to December and the safe harbor was set to expire, the Massachusetts legislature introduced a wide-ranging COVID recovery bill (HB 4269), which was passed and signed by both chambers in 11 short days. Contained therein was provision that materially altered the new Advance Payment requirement in a way that provides taxpayers considerable relief. Rather than simply extending the Safe Harbor, the legislature decided that large taxpayers who met the threshold requirement had two choices when complying with the Advance Payment. They could either:

  1. Remit the actual tax collected between the 1st and the 21st of the month on the 25th, OR
  2. Remit not less than 80% of the tax collected during the immediately preceding filing period.

Essentially, Massachusetts made it an entirely legitimate option to base the Advance Payment on 80% of the remittance in the previous month. While somewhat different from extending the safe harbor, the practical effect of this new provision is substantially the same – taxpayers will not be penalized for underpayment so long as their Advance Payment meets the 80% threshold.

This change is undoubtedly welcome by many of the organizations required to make Advance Payments in Massachusetts, who were otherwise facing January filings with no Safe Harbor protection. However, not everyone will be completely enthralled with the new option. Many taxpayers would argue that a better measure of the Advance Payment would have been 80% of the tax remitted in that same month for the prior year. This is particularly true for companies that have significant seasonal fluctuations in sales volume. Imagine a national retailer who experiences a sales spike in the month of December followed by a precipitous drop in January. Nonetheless, when making their January Advance Payment under the second option it will be based on 80% of the tax collected during their December spike. While any overpayment will be credited towards the liability due at the end of the month, no taxpayer is excited about sending more money to the DOR than is absolutely needed. While nothing prevents a particular company from switching between the two options, the fact remains remitting based on actual collections in the way envisioned by Massachusetts is an enormous challenge.

Take Action

Learn more about how Sovos is a leader for sales and use tax by checking out the IDC MarketScape for Sales and Use Tax report.

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
September 20, 2023
Prevent Consumer Confusion Around Hard Versions of Soft Drinks

A trend of the last few years has been the surge in new products entering the beverage alcohol market, from hard seltzers to RTD cocktails, along with the entry of well-established, traditionally non-alcoholic brands, like Hard Mountain Dew and Simply Spiked. While the growth of hard soft drinks is great for consumers, who benefit from […]

North America Tax Information Reporting
September 19, 2023
Form 1042 (and 945) Returns Electronic Filing Requirement Updates

We’ve previously discussed how the IRS released final electronic filing requirements for information returns effective with 2023 returns. One of those key changes is that businesses can no longer submit Form 1042 withholding tax returns on paper starting with tax year 2023 filings and beyond. But how will that actually impact businesses for the upcoming […]

EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
September 18, 2023
Intrastat Thresholds: Current Exemption Values

Intrastat thresholds are value thresholds which decide if companies in an EU Member State qualify to file a return to tax authorities, based on their intra-community trading. These thresholds change annually, prompting businesses to conduct an annual recalculation to know their obligations. This blog contains all the Intrastat reporting thresholds for 2023, as well as […]

EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
September 18, 2023
Intrastat Guide: Reporting, Numbers, Thresholds

Intrastat is an obligation created in 1993 that applies to certain businesses that trade internationally in the European Union. Specifically, it relates to the movement of goods – arrivals and dispatches – across EU Member States. The requirements of Intrastat remain similar across the EU, though certain Member States have implemented rules differently. As a […]

North America ShipCompliant
September 12, 2023
How Evolving Consumer Demand is Changing the DtC Wine Industry

There may only be two certainties in life, but consumer preferences are still undoubtedly going to evolve over time. This is definitely true in the direct-to-consumer (DtC) wine industry. Whether consumers are pushing for greater sustainability, increased transparency through a brand’s marketing or want something else entirely, wineries must work to incorporate that into their […]