Columbus, Georgia

Georgia's First Consolidated Government

Post Office Box 1340
Columbus, Georgia, 31902-1340
(706) 653-4013
fax (706) 653-4016

Council Members

Mr. Jerry R. Griffin, Executive Director

Association County Commissionen of Georgia

50 Hurt. Plaza, Suite loo0

Atlanta, Georgia 30303



Dear Jerry:



In response to your inquiry concerning the new E-fileE-pay sdes tax system the

Department of

Revenue (DOR) initiated in September of 2006, I believe you will fhd the

fo1loWh.g information.useful. For FY2007, beginnjng July 1, 2006 through

December 31, 2006, gross sales taxes collected by the. state have increased

7.8% or $382 million to $5.266 billion. SimultanmuSly,

aggregate sales tax distributions to local governments have jncrwxd 17,3 % or

$353 million to

$2.394 billion. Historically, this relationship has generally been equivalent.

In FY2005 and

IT2006 the increase was approximately 11 % each year through the December

repodhg period.

I understand one of your concerns is that some jurisdictions have reported

distributions lower

than they had forecast. On the other hand, it is clear from the above

information and as reported

in the DOR monthly revenue news releases that distributions in aggregate have

been strong to

date. We believe that if there is an unexpected variance, the major cause is

related to the new Effie

system that sales tax payers u f i e when they meet the threshold requkment to

use the

system and those other smaller Et.ailers which have opted to voluntarily use

the system, We

believe that this is the cause for any variances beGwse there have been no

other changes made to

the way we process distributions. We have also taken tax retum!i of major sales

tax payers and

Lalidated that what they prepared on their side reconciles to the data that the

new E-file system

received.



Legacy System

Under tlze old system of sales tax filing and paying, a retailer collects sales

tax this month, files a

return (and hopefully remits wely payment) by the 20h of the following month,

and DOR then

distributes the local portion on the 23Tdo f the next month based on the cutoff

date of the 20*,

The example would be retail collection through Febmcy 20, retailer tax retum

fdbg and paymenr.

With February's informatjon by March 20, and DOR distribution or2 Apd 23 just

after the April 20

filing deadline.

... .... ..

FEB. 8. 2007 3 : 1 3 P M SENT FROM ACCG

,* -. ..). Zage 2

February 5,2007

NO. 1168 Pa 3/4

:r

New E-fiile/E-pay System

Retailers using the new E-file system collect sales taxes in the current month,

and file and pay

electronically by the 20* of the following month. Since paper processing has

been. removd

from these returns, their data is incorporated in the distribution done on the

23d of the second

month miher than being processed over the next 30 days, Consequently, the

distributions related

to these ~mnas= accelerated by a month.

Thh exmple wQdd be retail collection through February 20, retailer tax retum

filing and payment

with February's information by March 20, and DOR distribution on March 23 just

after the Match

20 filing deadline.

The unique aspect of the changeover by taxpayen from the legacy system to the

new system has

meant that some large taxpayers actually had two payments post ifi the same

reporting period h

the fmt month they went live on the new system. This was because one f-llmg and

payment, for

example October, was pmcessed via paper retum in early November and the new

FAle return

for November was processed on November 20 when it was due. Therefore, both the

early

November and November 20 payments were added to the November 23 distribution to

the local

jurisdictions. Furthermore, since a retun and payment is due every month, the

catch up, if you

will, won't be reflected until the next fiscal. year,

To put this in additional perspective, DOR formerly mailed nearly 120,000 sales

tax returns

every month. Roughly 65 % historically came back with emrs that DOR was

correcting which is

obviously very expensive. Under the new system, approximately 10% of all sales

tax filers are

using the system since they meet the mandatory filing threshold of remitting

$5,000 on average

each reporthg period. Tbis has eliminated a substantial amount of errors

needing correction. If

we could lower the mandatory filing -hold to $750 per period, like Alabama has

done, the

quality of information DOR could provide to each jurisdiction would be patly

enhanced. It

would then be valid and accurately representative to break colleGtions and

distfii~onsd own by

NMC (industry codes) and jurisdictions. We can begin doing that with the new

system now but

it is lass than representative if only 10% of the sales taxpayers are using the

system even if they

represent approximately 80 % of the dollars collected.

h an attempt to address your original issue further we are happy to perfom

individual county

analyses much like we have done for bwndes, as well as cities like Valdosta. By

doing this we

can see whether a certain "major" discount retailer had two papbnts post in any

given month or

not. Even in rural jurisdictims, major retailers can remit six figwe sales tax

payments in a given

month. It is also not uncommon for home hnprovement centers and power companies

to post

high five figure payments. Thus having a system changeover month wheE multiple

retailers

may have had double payments post could result in distributions that are

different from what

local govenvnents may have expected.

It would help DOR for any county in question to let us do the analysis for them

to ensum this is

the cause and to determine, if for example, any or all of them have kss than

expected year-todate

numbers versus individual months that didn't meet projections made earlier in

the year or

the pevious year for a particular month.

FEB. 8, 2007 3 : 1 3 P M SENT FROM ACCG

L. - - . < . gage3

February 5,2007

NO. 1168 Pa 4/4

At the end of the day, I have been tolc that DOR collections have been

rec,nciled to dollars

transfed to &e Treasury and local distributions an: up 17.3 % over last year

through Recember

31, 2006. We are also reviewing why gross collections are only up 7,8% versus

the above

increase, Some of the difference is a~butableto the law passed last year that

reduced the

amount of e s h t e d sales tax retailers had to leave on deposit with the

state, These reductions in

deposits have been returned to sales taxpayers in the form of reWs and sales

tax credits,

Please have any jurisdiction concerned about their distriutions contact my

office so that we may

do a E2007 reconciliation by major taxpayer for them. We will s bas much

information as

the tax code allows us to share,

We hme every division in DOR that is integral to this process reviewing the

process to ensure

not ody that we are doing it correctly and that the system is working comctly

but that we can

explab it as well. Please let me know when you would personally like to visit

on this matter.

MSincerely, d ,

Bart L. W a r n

BLG:mb

cc: Tommy Bills, CIFO

Heidi Green, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs,

Sha Hesteer, Director, Local Government Services

Lora Butler, Dkctor, Tax Law & PoIicy

Attachments


No attachments for this document.

Back to List