Tag: mitch jackson

AccountingExpert WitnessForensic Accounting

Online Retailers to Collect State Taxes, per Supreme Court: Accounting Expert Insights

on June 21, 2018

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled states can force online retailers to collect taxes on the items they sell.

The ruling gives states the power to force eCommerce and Internet retailers to collect sales tax from online purchases, even if the company doesn’t have a physical presence (i.e. no brick and mortar location) in the state. This article from CNN provides a summary of the decision. This post from Bloomberg provides greater detail.

The case originated out of South Dakota and was brought by eCommerce-giant Wayfair.com. Wayfair was arguing against a South Dakota law requiring Internet companies with more than $100,000 in in-state sales, to collect sales and use taxes on goods sold through their website. Naturally, Wayfair was arguing this shouldn’t apply to them as they did not have a physical presence in South Dakota.

This will be a massive blow to online retailers such as Wayfair, Amazon, Overstock, and others. On the plus side, it seems this will level the playing field for all retailers and may even encourage consumers to shop locally.

After a suggestion from friend Mitch Jackson of Jackson & Wilson, I got to wondering, what impact will this ruling have on small and medium businesses? What advice might these small and medium online retailers need to proceed after this ruling? Mitch also covered this same topic in a live video today. His show is called LegalHour.live.

As I normally do in these situations, I turn to our extensive database of expert witnesses to answer these pressing questions. In this instance, we need input from accounting experts.

Accounting Expert Answers:

Michael J. Garibaldi, CPA, ABV, CFF, CGMA, is a Certified Public Accountant licensed in New York. Mr. Garibaldi works closely with law firms and other professional service firms, manufacturing, wholesale/retail, medical, technology, restaurant/hospitality, artists and galleries, construction, and real estate clients where he is responsible for providing accounting, tax planning management consulting services, and financial reporting. You can learn more about Mr. Garibaldi’s services by visiting his website at: garibaldicpas.com.

Posing the same two questions to Mr. Garibaldi, he stated, “The issue and recent ruling is hotly contested and has far reaching implications.” Then he provided the following answers.

Nick: What impact will this have on small and medium sized online retailers?

Mr. Garibaldi: Small and medium online retailers will now have to collect and remit sales tax to the various taxing jurisdictions that they sell in. This will create a significant administrative burden to properly collect the appropriate sales tax for each jurisdiction, file the appropriate sales tax returns and then remit the funds to each taxing authority. Since there is no central taxing authority, the retailers will need to determine the specific law, rules and regulations within each jurisdiction and then timely file and remit the appropriate sales tax collected. This includes not only the states in which the retailers will be responsible to collect and remit the sales tax, but each local  jurisdiction within each state. For example, New York State has over 70 local taxing jurisdictions each with their own tax rate. This will create the need to enhance the technology utilized in processing orders, increase administrative oversight, as well as tax and accounting department personnel to file the returns, etc.

Nick: What advice would you have for small and medium sized online retailers facing the prospect of looming state laws to collect taxes?

Mr. Garibaldi: Online retailers should not wait.  They must begin to develop the systems necessary to properly collect sales tax within each jurisdiction. They should determine the systems and technology needed, design the proper procedures and be ready to implement them as soon as possible. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Trying to collect and remit the sales tax on the fly will lead to unnecessary work to unravel what was collected and to whom it needs to be paid, not to mention the liability that comes with collecting sales tax. Business owners should take heed that this is a fiduciary responsibility so the owner(s) of the business can be held personally responsible.

Steven G. Roberts, CPA, CFF, CFE, CCI, CGMA, FCPA, is a forensic accountant and economics expert witness focusing valuation, economic analysis, economic loss measurement, forensic accounting, and fraud examination. You can learn more about his service here: veritasteam.com. He was unable to opine, but we received some initial thoughts from Dr. Wade Roberts, a senior forensic economist with Veritas:

Nick: What impact will this have on small and medium sized online retailers?

Dr. Roberts: The ruling was limited to the large online retailers. Additionally, states will have to adopt laws that specify and delineate the tax implications over the coming months/years. For businesses impacted, they will potentially compete for online business against states with more favorable tax treatment.

Nick: What advice would you have for small and medium sized online retailers facing the prospect of looming state laws to collect taxes?

Dr. Roberts: Small or medium size online businesses needing to comply with tax rules over thousands of tax jurisdictions will likely encounter added costs in the pursuit of adhering to the ruling. Businesses should determine the best tax software for their circumstance, attempting to both meet the needs of their operations, while at the same time minimizing the costs required for the added software. Many small and medium size businesses are already moving in this direction as is evidenced by the dramatic rise in Avalaro’s stock price.

Tiffany R. Couch, CPA, CFF, CFE, is Principal at Acuity Forensics, a Pacific Northwest forensic accounting firm. She has more than 20 years of experience in the field of accounting with the last 13 years focused completely on forensic accounting related engagements. Her expertise is in matters involving fraud investigation, forensic accounting, contract and regulatory compliance, internal control risk assessment, and complex litigation. You can learn more about her services at her website: acuityforensics.com.

Nick: What impact will this have on small and medium sized online retailers?

Ms. Couch: Likely cost to track the transactions and file the returns each month. There will also be a potential cost of buying software to handle this kind of tracking and reporting.

Nick: What advice would you have for small and medium sized online retailers facing the prospect of looming state laws to collect taxes?

Ms. Couch: Make sure you have a GREAT sales and local use tax CPA who can assist in ensuring you have an appropriate accounting and record-keeping system to ensure compliance. Also, don’t get behind on paying these taxes. I recommend setting aside the sales tax funds in a separate account so that the funds are available when it’s time to remit the tax.

Demonstrative EvidenceEvidenceExpert Witnesslegaltech

3D Printed Demonstrative Evidence: Expert Witness & Lawyer Insights

on June 19, 2018

Additive manufacturing, also 3D printing, is revolutionizing the creation and development of products. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, 3D printing is defined as, “The action or process of making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many thin layers of a material in succession.” Essentially, you’re making a computer generated three-dimensional solid object.

Are you wondering what type of solids objects one could make? Here are just a few items I’ve found from searching the Internet: bottle openers, sun glass holders, wheelchair ramps, fighter jet parts, concept cars, guns, prosthetic limbs,  jewelry, medical devices, and more.

For our purposes, some of the most interesting uses of 3D printing come in the forms of demonstrative evidence, such as crime-scene reconstruction, accident reconstruction, anatomical recreations for medical malpractice, and product recreations for in product liability cases.  I am certain we will see more uses as the technology progresses, but these seem to be the stand out items in the legal community at present.

3D Printing and the Law:

For a little background, I’ve pulled together some examples of 3D printing uses and their interaction with the law.

An article from 3Dprint.com, discusses a Canadian firm who creates 3D demonstrative models for criminal, medical malpractice, and personal injury cases. The article explains the 3D printed evidence provides a different visual and persuasion experience for jurors. It improves juror memories where verbal or written presentations may fail. A representative for the company featured in the article claims, “the credibility and memory bias problems inherent in courtroom proceedings can be overcome with visual aids.” The company further cited some of their own experiences, “such as 3D printing a broken spine from x-ray data in order to graphically reveal the severity of the injury or using a 3D, PDF image to show the degeneration of a hip in a medical malpractice case as ideal uses for their technology.”

There are other legal issues related to additive manufacturing. For example, if you have access to a 3D printer and you want a Mickey Mouse toy for your kids, what keeps you from creating your own? What if you want to create a bunch of Mickey Mouse toys and sell them to local retail establishments? According to this article from Intellectual Property Watch, you can do just that.  “3D printing technology makes it easy to copy and reproduce products – even if they are protected by a patent, trademark or copyright. It is as simple as downloading a computer-aided design (CAD) file, which can instruct the printer to reproduce a 3D object. CAD files are digital, meaning they can be shared across the internet, just like movies and music.” This article elaborates on the risks to intellectual property:

“The commercialisation of 3D printing – with an increase in small scale manufacturers – makes policing IP complex. Each printed copy of an invention represents the loss of a potential sale to its patent holder. As the manufacturer is ultimately the end user, it is harder to prove infringement. To sue, the patent owner would need to be aware that a manufacturer is using a 3D printer to reproduce their patented invention – a tall order given that 3D printers are increasingly common in households and small businesses.”

Certainly, this is a concern for those who are regularly creating patented and trademarked products.

Law enforcement is another area where 3D printing seems to receive significant news coverage. It seems police are using the technology to recreate crime scenes and even construct printed skeletal reconstructions for unidentified victims. In an article on PoliceOne, I discovered an effort by Maryland State Police to identify a homicide victim whose body was discovered after significant decomposition. Here is the process described on PoliceOne:

“By using 3D printing technology, scientists could create a replica of the skull, enabling police experts to render a facial likeness of the victim, which could lead to an identification… From a 3D printed model, experts can examine the bone structure to predict how facial muscles and skin would lay on the skull… With a rendering of the victim’s facial likeness, investigators hope for someone to come forward and identify the body.”

In an article from the National Post, I found that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are using 3D printing technology to reconstruct automobile accidents. The article which came out early this year just after the RCMP purchased their first 3D printer explained, “The printer would be used by the B.C. RCMP’s integrated collision analysis and reconstruction service (ICARS), which specializes in forensic reconstruction of collisions that cause serious injury or death. It would be used in conjunction with the unit’s existing 3D scanning technology, which it uses to create digital images of accidents.”

The above descriptions of 3D printing in the legal community are just a few examples. I wanted to give you a taste of the different areas of law being impacted by 3D printing.

Now, how about we get some input from an expert witness using the technology? Someone with experience related to 3D printed demonstrative evidence.

Marc Glickstein, MD, FACR – Medical Demonstrative Evidence Expert Witness

Dr. Marc Glickstein, is a partner in a large private practice radiology group, on the senior medical staff of 8 area hospitals, and an assistant clinical professor of Radiology at University of Connecticut School of Medicine. With his medical background and experience in photography, Dr. Glickstein specializes in providing medical demonstrative evidence to attorneys in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. You can learn more about Dr. Glickstein by visiting his website: medivence.com.

I posed several questions to Dr. Glickstein. Even with all of his experience, he has only used 3D printed evidence in two trials. This is not surprising given how few cases make it to trial these days. Nevertheless, the technology is impressive and is likely to be used more frequently in the future. Here are the questions and answers:

Nick: How long have you been working with 3D printed evidence?

Dr. Glickstein: 3 years.

Nick: What are the most common types of 3D printed evidence that you see in litigation?

Dr. Glickstein: 3D is best for depicting fractures although it can also be used to show tumors, birth defects, post operative complications (generally orthopedic).

Nick: Do you find 3D models to be more compelling evidence than other demonstrations?

Dr. Glickstein: Yes, because they can be viewed in real-time and the jurors can actually hold the model in their hand and have tactile as well as visual input which makes the experience more real and memorable.  It can also be more visually compelling to see the abnormality in 3 dimensions.

Nick: What types of 3D printed evidence have you used to assist in your expert analysis?

Dr. Glickstein: It has been limited to cases of bone fracture at this point but there is no reason why other types of modeling such as tumor modeling could not be used.

Nick: Can you share any examples of 3D printed demonstrations that were critical to the outcome of a case?

Dr. Glickstein: The photos I gave you (see below) were used to illustrate the severe nature of the spinal vertebral fracture and clearly showed the jury that there was significant spinal compression.  They clearly understood this but the verdict went to the opposing side for other reasons, too detailed and arcane to present here.

spinal-fracture-1.JPG

spinal-fracture-2.JPG

Nick: In my mind, I’m thinking 3D printed models are going to be incredibly expensive. Can you give us an idea of costs for 3D printed evidence?

Dr. Glickstein: 3D is expensive and that is the main hurdle. Many attorneys do not appreciate the compelling nature of such modeling and the costs can be dissuasive. The materials alone can run $1-2000 and that does not take into account the time needed to work out the display. This also does not factor in the costs of the 3D printers which are usually rented on a per click basis by a company that does the modeling, and high quality 3D printers can cost over $100k. A model can cost between $2500-4000 for the final product.

Nick: As an example, how long would it take to create a 3D printed model of a human heart?

Dr. Glickstein: It really does not matter whether one is making a model of a fracture or the heart…the time is similar and in general it should take a couple of weeks for me to create a model from time of receipt of the images to delivery of the finished product.

Nick: Anything else you think the legal community should know about 3D printed evidence that I have not asked…

Dr. Glickstein: 3D modeling quality is dependent on the parameters used in the original imaging, which must be of high enough resolution to enable high quality reconstructions in 3D, just as is the case in 2D or digital 3D reconstructions.  If a study is not of high enough resolution, it is not going to enable one to generate an acceptable rendition.  A radiologist can make that determination upon viewing the study itself.

There you have it. Direct from the expert who has used 3D models in litigation. The costs dissuade consistent use of this demonstrative evidence. However, this will not always be the case. As the technology progresses, costs will decrease, making 3D models will be less cost prohibitive. With the potential to show a jury the extent of an injury and allow them to hold a perfectly scaled replica, I predict the demonstrative models will be commonplace.

For greater insight on the future of this evidence, I reached out to one of the most tech savvy lawyers I know.

Morris Lilienthal, Esq. – Huntsville Alabama Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Attorney

Morris Lilienthal is a civil trial lawyer with more than 14 years of experience in wrongful death, personal injury, and product liability matters. He practices in Huntsville, Alabama with Martinson & Beason, PC. Morris is also the host of the TheMoShow, where he interviews local and statewide leaders, sharing stories of their business, public, and charitable endeavors. Prior to law school, he attended Maryville College in Tennessee where he played offensive tackle on the football team. The same competitive nature that helped Morris excel on the field helps him in his representation of injury victims today.

I know a lot of lawyers and I reached out to a bunch of them. It may be no surprise that none of them have yet used 3D printed demonstrative evidence in trial. Although, most of them knew of lawyers who had. This area of demonstrative evidence is growing and we’re sure to see it in the future. I asked Morris some questions about the potential use of 3D printed models at trial. Here they are:

Nick: Have you used 3D printed demonstrative evidence in litigation?

Morris: I have not used 3D printed models yet.

Nick: Would you find it helpful to present a 3D model to jurors to show the extent of an injury?

Morris: Yes, I think a 3D model would be very helpful in trial.  Anytime you put the jury in a position where they can visualize what’s occurred the case goes from just something that’s abstract to real life.  The jury gets a real understanding of what injury the plaintiff suffered and can then understand how the injury may impact them. As the saying goes a picture speaks a thousand words.

Nick: Do you think it would be good for jurors to be able to hold and analyze an exact replica of an injury (skeletal damage, damaged organ, traumatic brain injury)?

Morris: Yes.  Again it allows the jury to understand how the accident at issue caused the injury and how the injury impacts the plaintiff.

Nick: Besides current costs, is there a reason you might avoid using 3D printed demonstrative evidence?

Morris: Authentication by the doctor.  Before the model is able to be introduced into evidence you will have to get the doctor to validate its a true representation of the plaintiff’s injury.  This, can be done by sending the doctor the model prior to his/her testimony for authentication. However if the model is not accurate it will have to be made.

Nick: Are there any other items you think lawyers should take into consideration before using 3D printed evidence?

Morris: Just make sure the jury understands this is the exact injury the plaintiff suffered and that it’s not a model.

As this evidence is more commonly used, we will bring you more insights and suggestions from the experts and lawyers using the evidence at trial. Keep an eye out for the 3D printed demonstrative models. If they have not yet, they will be coming to a courtroom near you!