You might think the meaning of “eating utensils provided by the seller” is self-evident, but whether it is or isn’t doesn’t really matter. If the law doesn’t provide a crystal clear definition, there’s wiggle room: A tax department can say what a taxpayer sells is taxable; the taxpayer can say what they sell isn’t taxable; and round and round they’ll go.
In an attempt to stave off confusion about the taxability of prepared food sales, the Michigan Department of Treasury created Rule 86(5)(b) in 2007. The rule requires sellers to calculate their percentage of prepared food sales to determine whether eating utensils are “provided by the seller”:
When a seller’s percentage of prepared foods sales is greater than 75% of their total sales, eating utensils are considered to be “provided by the seller” if they’re merely made available to purchasers
When a seller’s percentage of prepared foods sales is 75% or less of their total sales, eating utensils are considered to be “provided by the seller” only if it’s the seller’s practice to physically give or hand the utensils to purchasers
I don’t know about you, but I find this confusing.
Rule 86(5)(b) was called in question after a business operating movie theaters in the state requested a refund of sales tax remitted on bottled water and prepackaged candy. The matter ended up in court, and in 2020, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals invalidated the 75% test.
The court’s decision pointed out that 1) Michigan statute doesn’t define or explain the phrase “provided by the seller,” and 2) the Michigan Department of Treasury “promulgated a rule that goes beyond the statutory language and establishes the 75% test whereby the definition of ‘provided by the seller’ changes depending on the taxpayer’s percentage of sales.”
“The statute clearly states that food sold with eating utensils provided by the seller would not be exempt — full stop,” observed the court. “It makes no attempt to distinguish between food that is above or below a particular sales percentage.”
The court was unpersuaded by Treasury’s argument that it’s authorized to administer the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), and that the SSUTA allows for the 75% test. And the invalidation of Rule 86 put Michigan at risk of being out of compliance with the SSUTA. If a member state is found to be noncompliant, it can be sanctioned and must take steps to return to compliance.
Enter House Bills 4377 and 4378 (aka 2023 Public Acts 141 and 142). The bills add a definition of “food sold with eating utensils provided by the seller” to the statute, broaden the definition of “utensils,” and clarify how bottled water, candy, and soft drinks fit in.