The Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling by the Georgia Tax Tribunal that Uber must pay sales tax on its drivers’ rides. The Court applied the Taxicab Regulation to Uber because it is a “headquarters operator.” And the Court ruled that the regulation did not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Uber Techs., Inc. v. O’Connell, 915 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 2025)
Uber argues that it is an online marketplace that does not furnish taxable transportation services, and the trial court erred in applying a “headquarters operators” amendment in a taxicab regulation to find that Uber was required during the audit period to collect sales tax from its independent drivers and remit that tax to the Georgia Department of Revenue. Uber further argues that requiring it to collect sales tax discriminatorily shifts the sales tax collection obligation in violation of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”). Because we conclude that the applicable statutory scheme required Uber to collect sales tax for the time period at issue here, we affirm the superior court’s order.
. . .
In short, under the Taxicab Regulation, cars for hire are required to collect sales tax on fares for transportation of persons, and whether that tax is remitted directly to the State Revenue Commissioner or to a headquarters operator (who then must remit the tax to the State Revenue Commissioner) depends on whether the car for hire has an association with a “headquarters operator.”
. . .
Regardless of whether Uber “furnished” transportation services under the Act during the audit period, the statutory language and case law cited above demonstrate that the Department possessed the authority to enact the Taxicab Regulation and shift the sales tax payment burden from the individual driver furnishing the transportation service and collecting the sales tax to the “headquarters operators,” who are responsible for collecting the sales tax from the individual drivers and paying it to the State Revenue Commissioner.
. . .
Contrary to Uber’s assertions, the Department is not expanding the scope of *684 OCGA § 48-8-30 (f) or “impos[ing] a new tax.” The Department is simply using its authority to enforce and collect sales tax by ensuring that the party best positioned to collect the tax is required to do so. As stated previously, “the sale of transportation by hired car has been subject to sales tax ever since that tax’s introduction into Georgia law, and all taxpayers who own, operate, or direct such vehicles are responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax.” Curry, 361 Ga. App. at 631 (1), 865 S.E.2d 217. The Taxicab Regulation provides an exception to the default collection and payment method found in OCGA § 48-8-30 (f) (1), and this Court has applied the collection and payment shift to cars for hire. Accordingly, whether Uber “furnished” services is irrelevant if the Taxicab Regulation applies to it. We therefore turn to that argument.
. . .
Even if the ITFA applies in this case, Uber has failed to show that requiring it to collect sales tax *689 under the Taxicab Regulation constitutes a discriminatory tax. Because we have concluded that Uber was properly taxed in Georgia as an entity that is a “headquarters operator” under the Taxicab Regulation, in the same manner as taxi and limousine headquarters operators, its ITFA argument based on discrimination fails.
