Were a New Mexico USANA associate's downline sales commissions deductible because the Utah company's underlying product sales lacked New Mexico nexus?

Plain-English summary

A New Mexico USANA associate owed gross receipts tax on commissions generated by her customers and downline because USANA's underlying New Mexico product sales were taxable. The AHO upheld tax and interest for 2008-2011 but abated all penalty because conflicting Department advice gave Vidia Wesenlund reasonable grounds for her mistake.

Wesenlund was an independent USANA associate in a direct-selling organization. She recruited and educated preferred customers, who ordered products from USANA's Utah website using her code, and recruited other distributors whose customers also placed orders. USANA paid her commissions when those customers bought products.

She did not sell products directly or earn commissions on products bought for her own consumption. Her USANA Forms 1099 reported $66,979 in 2008, $57,931 in 2009, $50,242 in 2010, and $46,948 in 2011.

Product delivery made New Mexico the destination

Section 7-9-66 allowed a commission deduction only when the underlying transaction was deductible. The AHO therefore first examined USANA's product sales.

Customers ordered online from Utah, and outside carriers shipped the products into New Mexico for consumption there. Under the destination principle applied in Dell, those facts brought the sales within New Mexico's intended gross receipts tax reach unless the Commerce Clause barred taxation for lack of nexus.

Local associates established and maintained USANA's market

USANA had no employees, offices, inventory, or owned property in New Mexico. But the physical-presence nexus law applied in 2016 also counted independent contractors whose in-state activities were significantly associated with establishing and maintaining the seller's market.

USANA's associates and distributors met potential customers, explained the products, recruited buyers, and directed them to USANA's website. They received commissions only when their customers or downline customers purchased. The AHO found that USANA would have had no New Mexico market without those activities.

That in-state market-maintenance work created substantial nexus under the cases then governing. The underlying USANA sales were taxable, so Wesenlund's related commissions could not use the Section 7-9-66 deduction.

Distributor resale collection was a separate transaction

USANA had a TS-22 agreement to collect tax on behalf of New Mexico distributors when they resold products to preferred customers. The AHO rejected the Department's suggestion that this agreement itself taxed USANA's own sales.

The agreement covered the distributor's resale transaction, while USANA's sale to a customer or distributor and Wesenlund's commission service were separate transactions with their own tax treatment.

Conflicting official advice removed penalty

Several Department employees had told USANA that it lacked New Mexico nexus, while other Department witnesses testified that nexus existed. USANA conveyed its no-nexus position to Wesenlund, and a 2016 Department email also stated—without knowing about in-state representatives—that online customer sales and related commissions were not taxable.

The AHO concluded that Wesenlund made a good-faith mistake of law on reasonable grounds. Penalty was abated, although mandatory interest remained.

Result: protest PARTIALLY DENIED AND PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision upheld:

• 2008: $3,824.78 tax and $991.42 interest
• 2009: $3,463.98 tax and $739.89 interest
• 2010: $3,043.79 tax and $529.61 interest
• 2011: $3,264.56 tax and $450.02 interest

All civil penalties were abated, and interest continued until payment.

What this means for you

Direct sellers and multilevel-marketing associates

Commissions are payment for a sales service separate from the product sale. A commission deduction may depend on whether the underlying sale is itself nontaxable.

Out-of-state sellers using local representatives

This decision applied the nexus law discussed in the 2016 ruling and found that independent contractors maintaining a market could create physical presence. Do not assume that historical analysis resolves a current filing obligation.

Accountants and tax professionals

Map each transaction separately: company-to-customer sale, company-to-distributor sale, distributor resale, and commission service. Collection agreements for one layer do not automatically determine another.

Common questions

Q: Did Wesenlund sell USANA products herself?
A: No. She recruited and educated customers and distributors and earned commissions when their customers ordered from USANA.

Q: Why were the underlying sales taxable?
A: Products were delivered and consumed in New Mexico, and local associates maintained USANA's market under the nexus cases applied at the time.

Q: Did USANA's lack of offices and employees prevent nexus?
A: No. The AHO treated the in-state independent contractors' market-building activities as sufficient physical presence under then-controlling law.

Q: Why did the TS-22 not decide the issue?
A: It collected tax on distributors' resales to customers, a separate transaction from USANA's sales and Wesenlund's commission services.

Q: Why was penalty abated?
A: Department personnel had taken conflicting positions on USANA's nexus, giving Wesenlund reasonable grounds for a good-faith mistake of law.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-9-2, 7-9-3.5, and 7-9-5 — gross receipts and multistate sales
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-9-55 and 7-9-66 — interstate-commerce and commission deductions
• NMSA 1978, §§ 7-1-67 and 7-1-69(B) — interest and good-faith mistake of law
• Regulation 3.2.1.18(HH)(1) NMAC — independent-contractor sales commissions

Cases cited:

• Kmart Corp. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, 2006-NMSC-006 — multistate tax and Commerce Clause analysis
• Dell Catalog Sales, LP v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, 2009-NMCA-001 — destination principle and market-maintenance nexus
• Tyler Pipe Industries v. Washington Department of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987) — representatives maintaining an in-state market
• New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department v. Barnesandnoble.com LLC, 2013-NMSC-023 — physical presence and market maintenance
• Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977) — interstate tax framework

Source

• Listing: New Mexico Decisions & Orders
• Decision post: Vidia Wesenlund
• Decision PDF: D&O 16-28

Original ruling text

FILED
6/22/2016
Administrative
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Hearings
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE Office
TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT JDG

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF
VIDIA WESENLUND No. 16-28
TO ASSESSMENTS ISSUED UNDER
LETTER ID. NOs. L0688803888, L1762545712,
L0420368432 and L1225674800

DECISION AND ORDER

A formal hearing on the above-referenced protest was held on May 18, 2016 and

continuing on May 24, 2016 before Monica Ontiveros, Hearing Officer. The Taxation and

Revenue Department (“Department”) was represented by Elena Morgan, attorney for the

Department. Amanda Carlisle, protest auditor, Danny Pogan, protest supervisor, Michelle

Gonzales, auditor III Schedule C and Andrick Tsbetsaye, audit manager, appeared and testified as

witnesses for the Department. Vidia Wesenlund (“Taxpayer”) appeared and was represented by R.

Tracy Sprouls, Esq., Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Witnesses testifying on behalf of

Taxpayer were Wilfred Emory Smith, Executive Director of Tax for USANA Health Sciences, Inc.

(“USANA”), and Jennifer Wright, Director of U.S. Field Development for USANA.

The Exhibits introduced into the record are Exhibits 1-3 and A, B, C, D, F and I. In

addition to the pleadings and filings referred to in the Findings, the record contains the Notice of

Telephonic Scheduling Conference issued December 7, 2015, Scheduling Order and Notice of

Administrative Hearing issued on January 11, 2016, Substitution of Counsel filed January 5,

2016, Motion to Strike Request for Deposition dated March 28, 2016, Response to Department’s

Motion to Strike Request for Deposition filed April 5, 2016, Taxpayer’s Motion for Extension of
Discovery Deadline filed April 5, 2016, Order Extending Deposition Deadline issued April 5,

2016, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Department on April 8, 2016, Taxpayer’s

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 25, 2016, Joint Prehearing Statement

filed on May 6, 2016, Notice of Reassignment of Hearing Officer for Administrative Hearing

issued on May 9, 2016, Joint Motion to Amend Prehearing Statement filed on May 11, 2016,

Amended Joint Prehearing Statement filed on May 11, 2016, Order Granting Motion to Amend

Joint Prehearing Statement issued on May 17, 2016, Order Continuing Hearing issued on May 20,

2016; and Memorandum on Factual Errors In re Protest of Sharon Ray filed on June 8, 2016. The

parties were given an opportunity to file briefs in the matter and instead made closing arguments.

There is a Decision and Order, Sharon Ray, No. 15-14 (“Ray Decision”), that was issued by

the Administrative Hearings Office (formerly known as the Hearings Bureau) which deals with a

different taxpayer but the same facts and the same legal issue. Sharon Ray was a USANA

Associate who earned commissions from selling USANA’s products. Both parties were provided

with the opportunity to correct any factual errors in the Ray Decision. Taxpayer corrected the

record as to Finding #19, and Finding #19 is not referred to in this Decision and Order. The

Hearing Officer incorporates some of the findings of the Ray Decision into this Decision for

contextual purposes. The parties entered into Stipulated Facts which are set out in the Joint

Prehearing Statement filed on May 11, 2016 and some of which are incorporated into the Findings

below.

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, IT IS DECIDED AND ORDERED AS

FOLLOWS:

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 2! of 24
!
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about January 31, 2015, the Department mailed Taxpayer a Notice of Limited

Scope Audit commencement for tax years 2008 through 2011. [Stip. Fact #1].

2. Taxpayer was audited through the Department’s Schedule C mismatch program

whereby the Internal Revenue Service provides computer records of Schedule C returns which are

compared to the Department’s records for the gross receipts tax program.

3. The Notice was based on a mismatch between the gross receipts reported to the

Department and the receipts reported on Taxpayer’s Federal Schedule C for tax years 2008

through 2011. [Stip. Fact #2].

4. On July 23, 2015, the Department issued four gross receipts tax assessments

against Taxpayer: 1) in the amount of $3,824.78 in principal, $764.96 in penalty, and $895.24 in

interest for the tax year of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 [Letter Id. No.

L0688803888]; 2) in the amount of $3,463.98 in principal, $692.78 in penalty, and $652.78 in

interest for the tax year of January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 [Letter Id. No.

L1762545712]; 3) in the amount of $3,043.79 in principal, $608.75 in penalty, and $453.07 in

interest for the tax year of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 [Letter Id. No.

L0420368432]; and 4) in the amount of $3,264.56 in principal, $652.92 in penalty, and $367.92 in

interest for the tax year of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. [L1225674800].

5. Taxpayer filed a protest to the assessments on October 21, 2015. The Department

acknowledged the protest on October 23, 2015. [Letter Id. No. L0328276016].

6. On December 4, 2015, the Department requested a hearing in this matter.

7. Taxpayer was not registered to do business in New Mexico for the tax years at

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 3! of 24
!
issue. [Stip. Fact #25].

8. Taxpayer failed to file gross receipts returns for the tax years at issue. [Stip. Fact

24; Letter Id. No. L0688803888; Letter Id. No. L1762545712; Letter Id. No. L0420368432;

and Letter Id. No. L1225674800].

9. During the tax years at issue, Taxpayer was an Associate or Distributor and an

independent contractor for USANA. [CD 05/18/16, 1:03-1:04 and Stip. Fact #16].

10. During the tax years at issue, Taxpayer had a contract with USANA, but it was not

offered into evidence. [CD 05/18/16, 58:52-59:19].

11. USANA is a “down the line” sales organization. [Ray Decision, Finding #11].

12. USANA offers its products to customers through a process it calls “direct

selling.” [Ray Decision, Finding #12].

13. “Direct selling,” according to USANA’s website is the “distribution method

employed … where products are sold person-to-person, away from a fixed retail location.” [Ray

Decision, Finding #13].

14. The headquarters and where all USANA products are shipped from is 3838 West

Parkway Blvd., Salt Lake City, Utah. [CD 05/18/16, 54:55-55:12].

15. USANA manufactures and sells nutritional (including vitamins), weight loss

products and personal care products. [CD 05/18/16, 16:39 and 29:30-31:18].

16. USANA describes its associates as “Our customer base comprises two types of

customers: "Associates" and "Preferred Customers." Associates share in our company vision by

acting as independent distributors of our products in addition to purchasing our products for their

personal use. Preferred Customers purchase our products strictly for personal use and are not

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 4! of 24
!
permitted to resell or to distribute the products.” [Ray Decision, Finding #16].

17. Compensation is earned in four ways by USANA Associates:

• Commissions. “The primary way an Associate is compensated is through earning
commissions. Associates earn commissions through generating sales volume
points, which are a measure of the product sales of their down-line sales
organization. Sales volume points are assigned to each of our products and
comprise a certain percent of the product price in U.S. dollars. To be eligible to
earn commissions, an Associate must sell a certain amount of product each month
("Qualifying Sales"). Qualifying Sales may include product that the Associates
use personally or that they resell to consumers. Associates do not earn
commissions on these Qualifying Sales. Associates may earn commissions on
their sale of products above the Qualifying Sales as well as the sale of products
by Associates in their down-line organization and to Preferred Customers.
Additionally, Associates do not earn commissions for simply recruiting and
enrolling others in their down-line organization. Commissions are paid only when
products are sold. We pay Associate commissions on a weekly basis.”
• Bonuses. “We offer Associates several bonus opportunities, including our
leadership bonus, elite bonus, and lifetime matching bonus. These bonus
opportunities are based on a pay-for-performance philosophy and, therefore, are
paid out when the Associate achieves the required performance measures.”
• Retail Mark-Ups. “As discussed previously, in markets where retail mark-ups are
permitted, our Associates purchase products from us at the Preferred Price and
may resell them to consumers at higher retail prices. In this case, the Associate
retains the retail mark-up as another form of compensation.”
• Contests and Promotions. “We periodically sponsor contests and promotions
designed to incentivize Associates to generate sales, grow their down-line
organization, and increase product users. These promotions are also based on a
pay-for-performance philosophy and, therefore, are only paid upon the
achievement of the promotion objectives.”

[Ray Decision, Finding #17].

18. Taxpayer has been in business of “down the line” sales with USANA since 2000,

but it took her a while to build her business up until maybe 2004. [CD 05/18/16, 35:31-35:54].

19. Taxpayer testified that she would meet and recruit potential customers or preferred

customers and describe USANA’s products to them in hopes that they would purchase the

products. Taxpayer thought of herself as an educator. [CD 05/18/16, 18:46-19:20].

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 5! of 24
!

20. Taxpayer recruited preferred customers in New Mexico. The customers purchased

USANA’s products on-line using a code that was specific to Taxpayer. Taxpayer earned a

commission on these sales. [Stip. Fact #19 and Exhibit #3, Scenario D].

21. Once the order was placed on-line, USANA’s products were shipped directly to the

customer in New Mexico by outside shipping companies, e.g., FedEx, UPS or USPS, from is

headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. [CD 05/18/16, 54:55-55:12 and 55:16-55:22].

22. Taxpayer recruited Distributors in New Mexico for USANA. These Distributors

recruited preferred customers. [Stip. Fact #20].

23. Taxpayer received a commission when a preferred customer of the Distributor

purchased USANA’s products. [Stip. Fact #20 and Exhibit #3, Scenario E].

24. The word Associate and Distributor are used interchangeably by USANA. [CD

05/18/16, 1:03-1:04].

25. During the tax periods at issue, Taxpayer did not sell any USANA's products to any

New Mexico customers and had no revenue from selling products to customers. [Stip. Fact #17

and Exhibit #1-“Personal”].

26. Taxpayer purchased USANA’s products for her own use. On these transactions

Taxpayer did not receive a commission on any orders she placed for personal consumption. [Ray

Decision, Finding #17 and Exhibit #3, Scenario A].

27. Other Distributors purchased USANA’s products for themselves. [Stip. Fact #21

and Exhibit #3, Scenario C].

28. For other Distributors who purchased and resold USANA’s products for resale to

customers, they did not receive commissions on any of these orders. [Ray Decision, Finding #17

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 6! of 24
!
and Exhibit #3, Scenario C].

29. Taxpayer received 1099s from USANA in the following amounts:

2008 $66,979.00
2009 $57,931.00
2010 $50,242.00
2011 $46,948.00

[Stip. Fact #4].

30. For tax year 2011, Taxpayer received a 1099 from Magidson Films Inc. in the

amount of $5,726.00 and Taxpayer does not protest the imposition of gross receipts tax on this

income. [Stip. Fact #5].

31. The Department made a number of adjustments based on commissions earned on

sales that were out of state sales prior to the assessments being issued. [Stip. Facts #6 and #7].

32. The Department entered into a Form TS-22DS agreement with USANA to pay and

report gross receipts taxes on New Mexico sales for Distributor sales. [Exhibit I, page 3]; and

[CD 05/24/16, 6:52-6:57].

33. A Form TS-22DS Agreement to Collect and Pay Over Taxes (“TS-22”) is one in

which a taxpayer may apply to the Department to pay gross receipts tax on behalf of another

taxpayer.

34. The TS-22 was entered into in 2011 and applied retroactively by the Department to

USANA’s 2009 tax year. [CD 05/24/16, 7:00-7:14]. The TS-22 entered into the record is dated

January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017 and is a renewal of a prior TS-22. [Exhibit I, page

3].

35. The description of the TS-22 from USANA’s website states that USANA is

collecting the gross receipts tax on the sale of the “products sold to New Mexico resident

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 7! of 24
!
Associates.” The description is dated February 11, 2011. [Exhibit I, page 2].

36. Per the TS-22, USANA charged and collected gross receipts taxes on the resale of

its products by a New Mexico Distributor, on behalf of the Distributer, and not on its own behalf.

37. The Department, through its employees, Joe Lopez (“Lopez”), Aaron Brown

(“Brown”) and Louis Gomez (“Gomez”), advised Wilfred Smith (“Smith”) that USANA, through

the TS-22, USANA should charge and collect gross receipts tax on behalf of its Distributors who

resold the products to New Mexico customers. [CD 05/24/16, 9:23-9:44 and 10:00-10:12].

38. Prior to February 2011, USANA charged its customers and Distributors gross

receipts tax and paid gross receipts on its sale of products to both Distributors and customers.

[CD -5/24/16, 11:01-11:16]. (These transactions are not the subject of the TS-22.)

39. Sometime in 2010, Smith spoke with Department employees, Lopez, Brown and

Gomez, about whether USANA had nexus with New Mexico for gross receipts tax purposes. [CD

05/24/16, 9:00-9:43].

40. The Department, through its employees, advised Smith that USANA did not have

sufficient gross receipts nexus with New Mexico to charge and collect gross receipts taxes on its

sale of products to either Distributors or New Mexico customers. [CD 05/24/16, 9:00-9:56 and

10:00-10:56].

41. In February 2011, USANA stopped collecting gross receipts tax on the sale of

USANA’s products to its Distributors for resale to New Mexico customers and to its New Mexico

customers. [CD 05/24/16, 4:22-4:49; 11:01-11:16; and 11:48-12:26].

42. On January 29, 2016, Michelle Gonzales (“Gonzales”), a Department employee

informed USANA in an e-mail that “there is no gross receipts tax due when a NM customer orders

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 8! of 24
!
products using your website. Therefore, if a NM sales representative (rep.) earns commissions on

this particular sale then it will not be taxable GRT.” [Exhibit 2 and CD 05/18/16, 1:06-1:09].

43. Gonzales testified that when she stated that there was no gross receipts tax on the

sale of USANA’s products, she did not know that USANA had sale representatives in New

Mexico. [CD 05/18/16, 1:10-1:11].

44. USANA made a business decision not to claim a refund for gross receipts taxes it

paid on the sale of its products to Distributors and to New Mexico customers. [CD 05/24/16,

13:30-14:49].

45. One reason that upper management at USANA decided not to request a refund was

that it believed that the gross receipts tax was not something it paid out but that it charged and

collected, and it believed that it would be an overwhelming task to refund the collected tax back to

the New Mexico customers who paid the tax. [CD 05/24/16, 13:30-14:49].

46. Dan Armor (“Armor”), a Department employee with the Corporate Income Tax

unit, called Smith sometime in 2015 to ask why USANA stopped filing corporate income tax

returns and why had USANA filed a TS-22. Smith explained that a determination was made that

no nexus existed between USANA and New Mexico. [CD 05/24/16, 18:00-18:45].

47. Armor and Smith discussed that the TS-22, by itself, does not create nexus, and

Smith believed that Armor agreed with his conclusion that charging and collecting gross receipts

on behalf of another does not confer nexus. [CD 05/24/16, 18:00-18:45].

48. Smith testified that USANA is a multinational corporation and that it complies with

all the tax laws in the different tax jurisdictions.

49. Smith was credible in his testimony regarding his interactions with the

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page 9! of 24
!
Department’s employees and his general testimony.

50. USANA has no employees in New Mexico, no offices, no ownership of tangible

personal property (inventory) and uses outside shipping companies, e.g., FedEx, UPS or USPS, for

delivery of its products into New Mexico. [CD 05/18/16, 54:55-55:12 and 55:16-55:22 and CD

05/24/16, 1:06].

51. USANA’s sales are dependent on its Associates and Distributors recruiting,

educating and shepherding customers to purchase USANA’s products through USANA’s website.

52. The purpose of hiring Associates and Distributors is to establish and maintain a

market in New Mexico.

53. Pogan and Tsbetsaye testified that for gross receipts tax purposes, USANA has

nexus with New Mexico. [CD 05/18/16, 2:20-2:21 and 05/24/16, 1:06-1:13].

54. Pogan and Tsbetsaye were very believable and credible in their testimony.

55. Sprouls was authorized by USANA to discuss USANA tax matters.

56. USANA requested no Ruling by the Secretary on whether it has nexus with New

Mexico.

57. Smith wrote a letter addressed to “To Whom it May Concern” that “USANA does

not have taxable presence in New Mexico and thus is not subject to the gross receipts

tax.” [Letter Dated June 12, 2015, Exhibit A, Attached to Protest].

58. On August 17, 2015, Cabrini Sanchez, a Department employee, informed Taxpayer

that her receipts were taxable. [Exhibit C].

59. Taxpayer made a mistake of law in good faith regarding the taxability of her

commissions.

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !10 of !24
DISCUSSION

There are a number of issues to be decided in this case. The issue directly affecting

Taxpayer is whether she is entitled to deduct her commissions from her receipts because the

underlying transaction is deductible pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-66 (1999), which

permits commissions to be deducted if the underlying transaction is nontaxable. The underlying

transaction is nontaxable only if USANA’s products were not delivered or consumed in New

Mexico and if USANA has no nexus (Commerce Clause) with New Mexico. There were

conflicting positions asserted by Department employees whether USANA has nexus. Taxpayer

argues that even though USANA paid gross receipts tax on the underlying transactions, it did so in

error, and since 2011, USANA is no longer charging and collecting gross receipts tax on the

underlying transactions. The Hearing Officer commends both parties in their efforts to set out the

facts in this case.

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

Section 7-1-17(C) provides that any assessment of taxes made by the Department is

presumed to be correct. NMSA 1978, §7-1-17(C) (2007). See, Carlsberg Management Co. v.

State, Taxation and Revenue Dep’t., 1993-NMCA-121, ¶10, 116 N.M. 247, 861 P.2d 288. In

addition, all receipts of a person engaging in business are presumed to be subject to the gross

receipts tax pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-5(A) (2002). Taxpayer has the burden of

overcoming the statutory presumption created by Section 7-9-5(A) and establish that she is

entitled to a deduction. TPL, Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t., 2000-NMCA-083, ¶8, 129 N.M.

539, 10 P.3d 863, rev’d on other grounds, 2003-NMSC-007, 133 N.M. 447, 64P.3d 474.

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !11 of !24
Did the Legislature Intend to Tax USANA’s Underlying Receipts?

Before determining whether Taxpayer owes gross receipts on her commissions, a

determination must be made whether the underlying transactions, the sales by USANA, are

taxable. In Kmart Corp. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t., 2006-NMSC-006, ¶11, 139 N.M.

172, 131 P.3d 22, the New Mexico Supreme Court set out a two-part analysis to determine

whether the gross receipts tax applies in multistate transactions. The first part of the test is

whether the Legislature intended to tax the sale of products from USANA, an out of state

corporation, to customers or to Distributors/Associates in New Mexico.

Generally speaking NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-2 (1966) provides that the Gross Receipts

Tax Act is intended to "provide revenue for public purposes by levying a tax on the privilege of

engaging in certain activities within New Mexico and to protect New Mexico businessmen from

the unfair competition that would otherwise result from the importation into the state of property

without payment of a similar tax.” (emphasis added). In Dell Catalog Sales, LP v. N.M. Taxation

& Revenue Dep’t., 2009-NMCA-001, ¶30, 145 N.M. 419, 199 P.3d 863, the court held that for

purposes of determining whether an interstate transaction is a taxable sale under gross receipts tax

law, the “destination principle” applies. The “destination principle” is defined as taxing the sale of

goods that cross state lines at the point of destination or where the goods are consumed, which

may be different from the point of delivery. Jerome R. Hellerstein & Walter Hellerstein, State

Taxation ¶18.02[1]. In Dell, the assumption is that the goods are consumed at the destination.

Dell Catalog Sales, LP, 2009-NMCA-001, ¶28. It is clear from Dell that if an out of state seller

sells goods that are delivered in New Mexico, and consumed in New Mexico, then gross receipts

tax applies on the sale of the goods. The facts in Dell are very similar to the facts in this case: An

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !12 of !24
out of state company sold tangibles through orders placed on the internet with the company and

the company shipped the products to the customer in New Mexico.

Up until the court decided the Dell case, the Department had analyzed interstate

transactions by determining where the title transferred and risk of loss passed which may be why

the Department employees thought USANA’s products were not taxable for gross receipts tax

purposes. Dean Baldwin, No. 06-08, Apple Computer, Inc., No. 00-37. These Uniform

Commercial Code concepts are no longer relevant or applicable to multistate transactions.

Thus, the only relevant inquiry is where USANA’s products were consumed or delivered in

New Mexico. In this case, all of USANA’s products were delivered into New Mexico by outside

shipping companies, e.g., FedEx, UPS or USPS. There is no dispute that USANA’s products were

ordered on-line by customers and that the order was placed at the headquarters of USANA in Salt

Lake City, Utah. Once the order was placed by customers, the shipment was fulfilled in Salt Lake

City. The products were delivered by outside shipping companies, e.g., FedEx, UPS or USPS and

shipped into New Mexico. The destination or delivery point of the products was New Mexico.

All of USANA’s products were consumed in New Mexico by customers who accepted delivery in

New Mexico. Ergo, the underlying transaction is taxable unless USANA does not have nexus.

Commerce Clause

The second prong of the test under Kmart Corp. 2006-NMSC-006, ¶ 11, is more difficult

to apply because USANA is not the taxpayer in this matter and USANA has not had an

opportunity to fully develop the argument that it did not have nexus with New Mexico. What is

clear is that a deduction under Section 7-9-66 cannot be applied to Taxpayer’s commissions unless

a review of USANA’s nexus with New Mexico occurs or the determination of nexus is accepted

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !13 of !24
without review, leading to the possible use of a deduction for this Taxpayer and other similarly

situated taxpayers which may be incorrect. In addition, the nexus issue is before this Hearing

Officer because there clearly is a difference of opinion on whether USANA has nexus with New

Mexico. Pogan and Tsbetsaye testified that it was their belief that nexus existed between USANA

and New Mexico while other Department employees took the position that there was no nexus

between USANA and New Mexico. In Taxpayer’s protest, Taxpayer argues that there is no nexus

because the sales are deductible under NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-55 (1993) and the Commerce

Clause of the United States Constitution. Because of the contradiction within the Department on

an essential point of law and Taxpayer’s statement that there is no nexus because of the Commerce

Clause, there is no choice but to address the (substantial) nexus issue. The Hearing Officer relies

on the facts before her.

In determining whether the sales of a multistate transaction are taxable, the second prong

of the Kmart Corp., 2006-NMSC-006, ¶11 case is whether the tax violates the Commerce Clause

of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to "regulate

Commerce ... among the several States." U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 3. In addition to this

"affirmative grant of power," courts have construed the Commerce Clause to have a "negative

sweep" as well, which "prohibits certain state actions that interfere with interstate commerce."

Quill Corp. v. N.D. ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298, 309, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992).

The United States Supreme Court set out a four-part test to determine whether a tax passes

constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430

U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 1076, 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977). Under Complete Auto, state taxation of out-of-

state businesses conducting interstate commerce will be upheld under the Commerce Clause so

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !14 of !24
long as the tax (1) is fairly apportioned, (2) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, (3)

is fairly related to the services provided by the taxing state, and (4) is applied to an activity with a

substantial nexus with the taxing state. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 279.

The Supreme Court in a number of decisions, National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of

Revenue, 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967), Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v.

Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 1076, 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977), and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504

U.S. 298, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992), has held that a seller must have a physical

presence in a state in order to satisfy the substantial nexus requirement. The physical presence

requirement may be met when “activities performed in this state on behalf of a taxpayer are

significantly associated with the taxpayer's ability to establish and maintain a market in the taxing

state for the sales.” Dell, 2009–NMCA–001, ¶ 43, (quoting Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Wash. State

Dep't. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 250, 107 S.Ct. 2810, 97 L.Ed.2d 199 (1987) (alteration and

emphasis omitted)).1

In the case of In re Barnesandnoble.com LLC, 2012-NMCA-63, ¶15, 283 P.3d 298, the

court said that “(t)he threshold for establishing a physical presence is not high.” In Nat'l

Geographic Soc'y v. Cal. Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 561, 97 S.Ct. 1386, 51 L.Ed.2d 631

(1977), the Supreme Court held that “(t)he relevant constitutional test to establish the requisite

nexus for requiring an out-of-state seller to collect and pay the use tax is not whether the duty to

collect the use tax relates to the seller's activities carried on within the (s)tate, but simply whether

the facts demonstrate some definite link, some minimum connection, between the (s)tate and the

1In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court's rejected Amazon.comLLC's and Amazon Services LLC’s petition for

writ of certiorari on the issue of whether New York's affiliate nexus law (third party advertisers) created substantial
nexus for Amazon. Amazon has no representatives, no offices and no property in New York. The U.S. Supreme Court
denied certiorari in the case, allowing New York’s affiliate nexus law to remain in place.

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !15 of !24
person it seeks to tax.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). The threshold

for finding physical presence is not high and all you need is minimum connection between the

taxpayer, USANA, and the state.

For purposes of finding a link and physical presence in New Mexico, it is relevant that

USANA does not have employees or any offices in New Mexico. It is also relevant that USANA

does not have any ownership of tangible personal property and uses outside shipping companies,

e.g., FedEx, UPS or USPS, for delivery of its products into New Mexico. However, the inquiry

does not end at this juncture. Quill Corp., 504 U.S. 312, 314-315. If there are no employees, no

offices or tangible personal property within a state, substantial nexus is present if the taxpayer has

independent contractors who perform services on the taxpayer’s behalf and are establishing and

maintaining a market. Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. at 249. In N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t. v.

Barnesandnoble.com LLC, 2013-NMSC-023, 303 P.3d 824, the physical presence requirement

was met with an out of state company, who had no employees, no offices and no tangible personal

property, by finding that the out of state company maintained a market in New Mexico.

USANA has Associates and Distributors in New Mexico who only receive commissions if

they can recruit potential customers to purchase USANA’s products. It is not material that the

Associates and Distributors are independent contractors. The sole purpose of the Associates and

the Distributors is to promote USANA’s products and in return, if the customer purchases

USANA’s products, the Associates and Distributors receive a commission. The Associates and

Distributors are clearly trying to establish and maintain a market on behalf of USANA.

The link or minimal connection between USANA and New Mexico is that USANA has

more than one independent contractor working on its behalf to establish and maintain a market for

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !16 of !24
its products in New Mexico. USANA would have no market in New Mexico but for the efforts of

its Associates and Distributors. It is the Associates and Distributors that meet, recruit and

shepherd the customers to purchase USANA’s products. Hence, Pogan and Tsbetsaye are correct

in their determination that USANA has substantial nexus with New Mexico, and the underlying

transactions with USANA are taxable.

Taxpayer argued that there was no nexus because Department employees Lopez, Brown

and Gomez, and in an e-mail from Gonzales to Smith, that no gross receipts tax should be imposed

on the sale of USANA’s products to the customers or the Distributors.2 Ms. Gonzales testified that

at the time she wrote the e-mail that she had no idea that USANA had sale representatives in New

Mexico. Smith was credible in his testimony that he had many conversations with Department

employees Lopez, Brown and Gomez and that he was told that the transactions were not taxable

for gross receipts tax purposes because USANA did not have nexus with New Mexico. These

Department employees are incorrect in their analysis that the multistate transactions are not

taxable; primarily because they either focused on where title transferred or risk of loss and/or

focused on the nexus issue to determine whether the transactions were taxable. The first part of

the Dell test is to determine whether the products are delivered and consumed in New Mexico. If

the answer to the first part of the analysis is yes, then the second part of the analysis is to

determine whether there is nexus with New Mexico.

Taxpayer also argued that the deduction found in NMSA 1978, Section 7-9-55 (1993)

applied. While the taxpayer in the Dell case did not argue that the transactions were deductible

because of Section 7-9-55, it made a similar argument; namely that the imposition of gross

2 The Department did not present any rebuttal testimony from these employees that Lopez, Brown or Gomez said

anything different to Smith.

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !17 of !24
receipts tax on its interstate sales violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

In the N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t. v. Barnesandnoble.com LLC and In re

Barnesandnoble.com LLC cases, again no mention was made of Section 7-9-55. However, the

argument again was whether the gross receipts tax applied to its transactions violated the

Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Generally, given this language, the deduction

found in Section 7-9-55 is related to whether the gross receipts tax violates the Commerce Clause

of the United States Constitution.

The Department argued at the hearing that the underlying transaction or the sale of

USANA’s products to customers and Distributors was taxable because the TS-22’s purpose was to

collect gross receipts tax on the sale of USANA’s products to Distributors, Associates and

preferred customers. Taxpayer argued that this interpretation of the TS-22 did not make sense.

The Hearing Officer agrees with Taxpayer that this argument does not make sense because the

Department does not need an agreement to collect tax from a taxpayer. The purpose and intent of

a TS-22 agreement is to pay gross receipts tax on behalf of another taxpayer. See, Teco

Investments, Inc., No. 96-27; Richard L. Trulious, No. 99-08; April Muniz, No. 99-09; Marc K.

Schaefer, No. 99-10; David J. and Nancy L. Debusk, No. 99-11; and Cornerstone Contract

Service, No. 01-32.

The intent of the TS-22 agreement entered into between the Department and USANA was

to report and pay gross receipts taxes on the sales of USANA’s products by the Distributors to

preferred customers. This is an entirely separate transaction and is not taxable to USANA but to

the Distributor. The TS-22 was entered into in 2011 and applied retroactively by the Department

to USANA’s 2009 tax year. The TS-22 entered into the record is dated January 1, 2015 through

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !18 of !24
December 31, 2017 and is a renewal of a prior TS-22. Per the TS-22, USANA, on behalf of an

Associate or Distributor, charges and collects gross receipts taxes on the resale of its products by a

New Mexico Distributor and not on its own behalf. USANA is charging and collecting gross

receipts tax on behalf of the Distributors on the sale of USANA’s products to New Mexico

customers, and not on its own transactions.

Commissions

Since the underlying transaction is taxable, Section 7-9-66, does not apply. The only issue

left is whether Taxpayer’s commissions are taxable. Commissions are considered remuneration for

providing a service. Regulation 3.2.1.18(HH)(1) NMAC provides that:

Commissions and other consideration received by an independent contractor
from performing a sales service in New Mexico with respect to the tangible
or intangible personal property of other persons are gross receipts whether
or not the other person reports and pays gross receipts tax with respect to the
receipts from the sale of the property. This situation involves two separate
transactions. The first is the sale of the property by its owners to the
customer and the second is the performance of a sales service by the
independent contractor for the owner of the property. … Receipts, whether
in the form of commissions or other remuneration, of the person performing
a sales service in New Mexico are gross receipts of the person performing
the sales service.

During the tax years at issue, Taxpayer was an independent contractor called an Associate

or a Distributor for USANA, a “down the line” sales organization. She explained and educated

potential customers on the value of USANA’s nutritional and personal care products. Taxpayer

received a commission through the “direct selling” of USANA’s products. Taxpayer’s job as an

independent contractor was to meet potential customers and explain USANA’s products to them in

hopes that they would purchase the products. To purchase USANA’s products, a customer went

on-line using a code that was specific to Taxpayer and placed an order. Taxpayer earned a

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !19 of !24
commission based on whether the customer that she interacted with purchased USANA's products.

Taxpayer also recruited Distributors for USANA who recruited their respective preferred

customers to USANA. Again, Taxpayer received a commission when a preferred customer of the

Distributor purchased USANA’s products. Taxpayer received remuneration for providing a sales

service, the sale of products, for USANA. Therefore, the commissions received from USANA are

gross receipts and taxable.

Civil Penalty

Civil penalty is imposed when a taxpayer is “negligent” or disregards the Department’s

rules and regulations in not filing a return or paying tax when it is due. Section 7-1-69(A) states

that:

(e)xcept as provided in Subsection C of this section, in the case of
failure due to negligence or disregard of department rules and
regulations, but without intent to evade or defeat a tax, to pay
when due the amount of tax required to be paid, to pay in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7-1-13.1 NMSA 1978
when required to do so or to file by the date required a return
regardless of whether a tax is due, there shall be added to the
amount assessed a penalty in an amount equal to the greater of:

(1) two percent per month or any fraction of a month from the date
the tax was due multiplied by the amount of tax due but not
paid, not to exceed twenty percent of the tax due but not paid;

(emphasis added) NMSA 1978, §7-1-69(A)(1) (2007). The Department’s regulation provides that

“negligence” includes “failure to exercise ordinary business care and prudence which reasonable

taxpayers would exercise under like circumstances; inaction where action is required;

inadvertence, indifference, thoughtlessness, carelessness, erroneous belief or inattention” for either

failing to file a return on time or failing to make a payment on time. Regulation 3.1.11.10 NMAC.

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !20 of !24
Inadvertent error is defined as “negligence.” El Centro Villa Nursing Ctr. v. Taxation & Revenue

Dep’t., 1989-NMCA-070, ¶9, 108 N.M. 795, 779 P.2d 982.

Section 7-1-69(B) provides that “(n)o penalty shall be assessed against a taxpayer if the

failure to pay an amount of tax when due results from a mistake of law made in good faith and on

reasonable grounds. The term “reasonable” is a factual determination made by the Hearing

Officer. It requires evidence that the taxpayer acted reasonably or acted in a “(f)air, proper or

moderate under the circumstances.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 1379 (9th ed. 2009).

In this case, there was some confusion within the Department and with USANA as to

whether the underlying transactions were taxable. Taxpayer had reasonable grounds to believe that

her commissions were nontaxable because she relied on Smith’s statements to her that USANA did

not have nexus with New Mexico, and therefore no gross receipts tax was due on the underlying

transaction, allowing for the deduction of the commissions. There was a mistake of law made in

good faith and on reasonable grounds. Albeit during almost all of the tax years at issue, USANA

was paying gross receipts tax on the underlying transactions. Nonetheless, penalty is abated.

Interest

On the subject of interest, New Mexico law is very clear on the imposition of interest when

the principal amount of tax is unpaid when due, even if the payment is received one day late.

Section 7-1-67(A) (2013) states that interest “shall be paid” on taxes that are not paid on or before

the date on which the tax is due. NMSA 1978, §7-1-67(A) (2013). The word “shall” is interpreted

to mean that the Department does not have discretion and must assess interest if principal tax is

due and owing. Marbob Energy Corporation v. NM Oil Conservation Commission, 2009-

NMSC-013, ¶22, 146 N.M. 24, 206 P.3d 135. The assessment of interest is not designed to punish

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !21 of !24
taxpayers, but to compensate the state for the time value of unpaid revenues. Because the

principal amount of tax was not paid when it was due, interest was properly assessed on the

principal amount until the date it was paid. Therefore, Taxpayer owes the interest amount

calculated through date of payment of the principal as set out in the Department’s worksheet.

[Exhibit F].

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Taxpayer filed a timely written protest to the Notice of Assessments Letter Id. Nos.

L0688803888, L1762545712, L0420368432 and L1225674800 for gross receipts tax principal,

penalty and interest for the tax years ending 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

B. Jurisdiction lies over the parties and the subject matter of this protest.

C. The hearing was timely set as required by NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-24.1(A) (2013).

D. Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-17(C) (2007), the Department’s assessment is

presumed to be correct, and it is Taxpayer’s burden to come forward with evidence and legal

argument to establish that she was entitled to an abatement.

E. Taxpayer provided services in New Mexico to USANA; specifically, she recruited,

educated and shepherded preferred customers to purchase USANA's products.

F. Taxpayer also provided services in New Mexico to USANA by recruiting

Distributors whose preferred customers purchased USANA’s products.

G. Taxpayer received commissions when her preferred customers or the recruited

Distributor’s preferred customers purchased USANA’s products.

H. The sale of USANA’s products to preferred customers in New Mexico is taxable.

I. The sale of USANA’s products to Distributors in New Mexico is taxable.

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !22 of !24
J. The intent of the TS-22 agreement is to collect gross receipts tax on the sale of

USANA’s products by its Distributors to preferred customers.

K. The deduction found in Section 7-9-66 does not apply to Taxpayer because the

underlying transaction or the sale of USANA’s products to either a preferred customer or a

Distributor is a taxable event.

L. USANA has substantial nexus with New Mexico because it has independent

contractors (Associates and Distributors) whose purpose is to establish and maintain a market in

New Mexico for USANA.

M. USANA would have no market in New Mexico, but for the Associates and

Distributors.

N. USANA’s sales to Distributors, Associates and preferred customers are not

deductible pursuant to Section 7-9-55.

O. Taxpayer was not negligent in not filing her gross receipts returns when due for the

tax years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011; accordingly, she does not owe penalty.

P. The total amount due for tax year 2008 is $3,824.78 in principal and $991.42 in

interest; for the tax year 2009, the amount due is $3,463.98 in principal and $739.89 in interest; for

the tax year 2010, the amount due is $3,043.79 in principal and $529.61 in interest; and for the tax

year of January 2011, the amount due is $3,264.56 in principal and $450.02 in interest.

Q. Interest continues to accrue until the principal is paid in full.

For the foregoing reasons, the Taxpayer's protest IS PARTIALLY DENIED AND

PARTIALLY GRANTED.

DATED: June 21, 2016

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !23 of !24
Monica Ontiveros

Monica Ontiveros
Hearing Officer
Taxation & Revenue Department
Post Office Box 630
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0630

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 7-1-25 (2015), the Taxpayer has the right to appeal this

decision by filing a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals within 30 days of the

date shown above. See NMRA, 12-601 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If an appeal is not

filed within 30 days, this Decision and Order will become final. A party filing an appeal shall file

a courtesy copy of the Notice of Appeal with the Administrative Hearings Office

contemporaneously with the filing of the Notice with the Court of Appeals so that the

Administrative Hearings Office may prepare the record proper. The Notice of Appeal should be

mailed to John Grieg, Administrative Hearings Office at P.O. Box 6400, Santa Fe, New Mexico

87502. Mr. Griego may be contacted at 505-827-0466.

/s/ John D. Griego

John Griego

In the Matter of the Protest of Vidia Wesenlund
page !24 of !24