Albeit the most significant vote on this year’s election day ballot was the choice for President of the United States, numerous consequential statutory amendments and propositions having a direct impact on state tax constructs were also included on ballots. Taxpayers across the country voted on ballot initiatives that would amend state constitutions and alter tax impositions in their state, approving some while denying others.

The Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC (the Browns) recently brought suit against the City of Cleveland (the City) over a state law that restricts the Browns from moving their NFL team out of the tax-supported Huntington Bank Field (HBF) in downtown Cleveland. The Browns currently play home games at HBF, but plan to move to a new stadium after the expiration of their lease agreement in 2029.

Spoiler Alert: no upcharge. A Missouri Circuit Court judge recently granted motions for summary judgment submitted by Netflix, Hulu, DirecTV and Dish Network, agreeing that the companies’ streaming services are excluded from state franchise fees.

Alleging the company is fraudulently advertising service fees as sales tax, a class action complaint was filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Chipotle). Suit was brought against the fast casual Mexican restaurant for representing to its customers that they are paying higher than usual amounts of sales tax, when they are actually paying sales tax plus “Chipotle’s eye-popping service fees.”

In a Private Letter Ruling released by the Texas Comptroller’s Office, the Comptroller ruled that a Taxpayer’s pre-authorization services for insurance eligibility are not taxable as insurance services, data processing services, or information services. The decision comes despite a recent proposal by the Comptroller’s Office to effectuate a paradigm shift related to taxable data processing services from an “essence of the transaction” approach to a test that examines the seller’s actions over the product the buyer is purchasing.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied certiorari regarding South Dakota’s imposition of use tax on equipment used in-state by an out-of-state construction company. Minnesota construction company, Ellingson Drainage, Inc. (Ellingson), challenged South Dakota’s imposition of the tax on the unapportioned fair market value of the equipment, regardless of how long the equipment is physically located in the state.