Expedia v. City of Columbus

40 Citing cases

  1. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    590 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 242 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Agreeing with the Expedia court's reasoning but coming to a different result based on an issue not raised in this case

    Furthermore, unlike in the hypotheticals set forth above, none of the OTCs here are under common ownership with the physical establishments that control the rooms. Moreover, the recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court in Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684, 681 S.E.2d 122 (2009), is instructive by way of the contrasting language in the city ordinance before the state court. The City of Columbus ordinance assesses a tax on "the charge to the public" for a room, causing the Court to conclude that because "Expedia is not the end-consumer, is not a member of the public at large, and is not the occupant of the hotel room," the tax targets the full rate paid by the customer.

  2. City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com

    289 Ga. 323 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that, “[s]ince the consumer cannot obtain the right to occupy the room without paying the retail room rate charged by the OTC,” that retail rate is the “taxable amount or ‘rent,’ ” where “rent” means “the consideration received for occupancy valued in money”

    Hotels.com et al. are online travel companies (OTCs) which book hotel rooms and make other travel arrangements for customers who access their services over the internet. The OTCs' business model, known as the "merchant model," is fully detailed in Expedia v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684 ( 681 SE2d 122) (2009). In sum, the consumer pays the OTC a retail "room rate" and a line item for "taxes and fees" in order to reserve and later occupy one of the City's hotel rooms.

  3. Hotels.com, L.P. v. City of Columbus

    286 Ga. 130 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    THOMPSON, Justice. The facts and arguments in this appeal are virtually identical to those in Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684 ( 681 SE2d 122) (2009). Like its sister company, Expedia, Hotels.com, L.P., is an online travel company which books hotel rooms and makes other travel arrangements for customers who access its services over the internet.

  4. Ga. Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n v. New Ga. Project Action Fund

    359 Ga. App. 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    The issue before us is purely legal and, thus, is reviewed de novo. See Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus , 285 Ga. 684, 689 (4), 681 S.E.2d 122 (2009). Broadly speaking, the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, see OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq., "is meant to provide a procedure for administrative determination and regulation where expressly authorized by law or otherwise required by the Constitution or a statute of this state."

  5. In re Sharee Baps Corp.

    346 Ga. App. 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    On appeal, the question of whether the superior court properly construed a county ordinance is one of law, and our review is de novo. See SDS Real Prop. Holdings, LTD. v. City of Brookhaven , 341 Ga. App. 862, 862, 802 S.E.2d 100 (2017) ; see also Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus , 285 Ga. 684, 689 (4), 681 S.E.2d 122 (2009) ("The interpretation of statutes and ordinances is a question of law, which we review de novo on appeal." (citations omitted) ).

  6. City of Rome v. Hotels.com, L.P.

    549 F. App'x 896 (11th Cir. 2013)   Cited 11 times
    Upholding exclusion of category of "back tax damages" because plaintiffs and their experts did not provide computation of damages, and rejecting argument that failure to comply with discovery obligations was justified because they did not have data

    Second, the Localities contend that the OTCs are liable for back taxes they never collected pursuant to City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, 289 Ga. 323 (2011). Third, the Localities argue that City of Atlanta and Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684 (2009), do not preclude all legal and equitable relief for back taxes in this case. Fourth, the Localities request that we certify a question to the Georgia Supreme Court.

  7. Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus

    305 Ga. App. 450 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that orders adverse to claims of privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, are subject to effective appellate review and are therefore not collateral orders

    MILLER, Chief Judge. These cases arise out of the Supreme Court of Georgia's decision in Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684 ( 681 SE2d 122) (2009). Therein the Supreme Court held that pursuant to OCGA § 48-13-50 and the Hotel-Motel Occupancy Excise Tax Ordinance of the City of Columbus (the "City"), Expedia must remit hotel occupancy taxes to the City based on the full room rate it charged its customers rather than the wholesale rate it agreed to pay the hotel for the room.

  8. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Priceline.com Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-08-3319 (D. Md. Jul. 23, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Defendants claim that the City's interpretation of the Ordinance violates all four prongs of the Complete Auto test. Consistently with every court that has considered this issue in this context, the Court disagrees. See Vill. of Rosemont, I11, v. Priceline.com Inc., 2 011 WL 4913262 at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2011); City of Charleston v. Hotels.com, 586 F. Supp. 2d 538, 544 (D.S.C. 2008); City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, 2008 WL 2486043 at *14 (W.D. Tex. 2008); Travelscape, LLC v. S. Carolina Dept. of Revenue, 705 S.E.2d 28, 36 (S.C. 2011); Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 691 S.E.2d 122, 128 (Ga. 2009). As discussed herein, the Court holds that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment with regard to their Commerce Clause affirmative defense.

  9. City of Goodlettsville v. Priceline.com, Inc.

    844 F. Supp. 2d 897 (M.D. Tenn. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Resolving any ambiguity in taxing provision in favor of OTCs

    2). Second, in the Louisville/Jefferson II decision, the Sixth Circuit cited to Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 285 Ga. 684, 681 S.E.2d 122 (2009)—published post- Goodlettsville—as providing an example of language that did clearly apply hotel taxes to the retail rate charged by OTCs. 590 F.3d at 389 (discussing City of Columbus ). There, the ordinance at issue expressly taxed the “charge to the public” for a room.

  10. Village of Rosemont, Illinois v. Priceline.com Inc.

    09 C 4438 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2011)   Cited 5 times

    ) Because the record establishes that defendants' customers cannot occupy hotel rooms in Rosemont unless they pay the full amount defendants charge, defendants' fees and markups are part of the rental rate subject to the Tax. See Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 681 S.E.2d 122, 128 (Ga. 2009) (explaining that Expedia and other OTCs are travel intermediaries, not room occupants, and finding that the full price Expedia charges its customers, not the amount it pays hotels, is subject to a similar hotel tax); see also Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Hotels.Com, LP, 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009) (agreeing with the Expedia court's reasoning but coming to a different result based on an issue not raised in this case). Defendants also argue that the Hotel Tax is a sales tax and thus, cannot be levied on defendants' services.