The major Online Travel Agencies today notched a huge win in Anaheim, California where a judge threw out a $21,326,881.30 ruling against Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, Orbitz and their related subsidiaries with a strongly worded rebuke to the Anaheim City Hearing Officer's earlier findings.
This case was originally heard by the City's Hearing Officer who made the determination that the OTAs did, in fact, operate hotels under Anaheim's definition. The Hearing Officer originally found that each OTA is both "the proprietor" and the "managing agent" of every hotel in the City of Anaheim. Wow. As such, the Hearing Officer found that the OTAs owed the princely sum of ~$21M covering back taxes, fines, interest and, no doubt, extra donuts for the office.
We'll get the whole decision up shortly for reading on your next flight but here are the highlights:
The big take away is that the judge who decided this case will also be presiding over several other similar cases currently in various stages of litigation in California. These include cases in Los Angeles, San Diego and a particularly nasty one in San Francisco where the OTAs have already paid significant damages in order to even have the right of appeal under the City's "Pay to Play" rules. (Note: Anaheim had this rule as well but the OTAs were able to get it overturned.) While no one can predict how a judge will rule and each case is obviously different, this judge clearly understands the issues at hand.
The ruling states "OTCs do not control and run hotels. The Hearing Office's factual findings list several functions performed by OTCs with the respect to resale of hotel rooms" including marketing functions, determining mark-ups etc. The Court correctly determined that "none of these facts comprise incidents of control of a hotel or give the OTCs the right to run the business of a hotel. The hotel control the production of the product sold, the quality of production, the channels of distribution of the product and the pricing of the product." This discussion of Marketing 101 and the " Four Ps" reminds me of my first marketing class in college - sounds as if the Judge may have taken a similar class along the way.
In one of the stronger worded sections, the judge concludes that the Hearing Office that it is "a logical fallacy to conclude, as the Hearing Officer apparently did, that because a hotel operator is responsible for collecting rent and taxes from [guests], any entity that collects rent and taxes from a [guest] must be an operator [and be liable for the occupancy tax] " The footnote explains it more clearly still: "Principles of formal logic demonstrate that when the statement 'if A then B' is a true statement, it is incorrect to conclude that the converse 'if B then A' must be true. Yet the Hearing Officer accepted this reasoning." Ouch. Basic logic, right?
However, the judge clearly leaves the door open for the City to base an occupancy tax on the total amount paid by the guest for the hotel room if the law was drafted (as New York City has attempted to do) and constructed to facilitate such a tax. "There seems to be no reason why such a tax scheme could not be drafted and considered." But before Anaheim goes off to re-do the tax wording, consider the Courts further discussion in regards to the City's position that times had changed (with the advent of the merchant model) and that the taxation laws should simply morph to fit the times: "where a taxing agency has not anticipated a new revenue opportunity, the court may not act to fill what might be perceived as a 'gap' in tax coverage. Creation of a larger tax rate or larger tax base requires voter approval pursuant to Proposition 218. California Proposition 218 states that "A taxing methodology must be frozen in time until the electorate approves higher taxes"
This ruling came down to carefully interpreting the current tax laws on the books. Clearly, opportunities exist for taxing authorities to adjust those laws (at least outside of California) to change with the times - but a go-forward tax is a far cry from a huge retroactive tax from the OTA's perspective.