DME is No Longer Exempt from Sales Tax in South Carolina

Published in Government Relations on August 02, 2024

DME providers in South Carolina (SC) have been exempt from paying sales tax to the state of SC since 2007, provided that the items received by a patient 1) are paid for by either the funds of Medicare of South Carolina Medicaid, 2) are sold by a provider who holds a South Carolina retail sales license and 3) are provided by a supplier whose principal place of business is located in South Carolina, and 4) meet the definition of DME. The language of that tax exemption can be found in S.C. code 12-36-2120(74).

In a June 26, 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court of South Carolina determined that the provision which exempts DME from being subject to sales tax in SC to be unconstitutional, arguing that the language of the original sales tax exemption was unfair and discriminatory against interstate commerce. Under the existing exemption language, out-of-state providers were required to pay sales tax while in-state providers were not. The Court found that the existing exemption language violated the Commerce Clause, and therefore should be stricken and removed altogether from the current code.

Some important takeaways for providers who offer products and services in South Carolina include:

  1. DME sales after June 26, 2024 are subject to sales tax, and all providers, in state or out of state, will need to collect and/or remit sales tax (6%) to the state on the DME sales transactions in South Carolina which occur after that date.
  2. The SC Supreme Court said they are open to allowing a new sales tax exemption to be passed and implemented in the state, it would just have to be worded differently than the previous language that was just voided. Working alongside SC providers and other industry stakeholders, VGM can certainly assist in drafting new tax exemption language in the hopes of getting it through the legislative process and ultimately passed and implemented. That process will take some time (possibly 1-2 years).
  3. Providers who are based outside of South Carolina, and who have been paying taxes all along, could be eligible for a refund from the state of SC. In their ruling and subsequent informational letter, the SC Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court’s previous decision to issue refunds to out-of-state providers who had paid sales tax into the state on their DME sales. Providers interested in requesting a refund can use Form ST-14 to initiate that process.

The removal of the tax exemption for DME will certainly impact DME providers who do business in South Carolina. We will strive to get a new exemption established going forward. In the meantime, providers can certainly have discussions with their payer sources, including Medicaid, Medicaid MCOs, private payers, etc. regarding what the removal of the exemption means to their business and what needs to happen to offset the impact of this change. If providers can’t afford to absorb the additional costs incurred by this change, they may need to request a fee schedule or process adjustments to offset these additional costs.

VGM will continue to monitor this change and will update you regarding any additional changes or information that comes to light regarding the removal of the sales tax exemption for DME in South Carolina. Additional information regarding this topic can also be found in Informational Letter 24-10.


TAGS

  1. billing & reimbursement
  2. dmepos
  3. regulatory
  4. vgm government

From Our Experts

Ike Isaacson and Brian Leitten Podcast: The Case for DME Investment Continues to Strengthen thumbnail Ike Isaacson and Brian Leitten Podcast: The Case for DME Investment Continues to Strengthen Listen to Ike Isaacson, SVP of VGM Government Relations, and Brian Leitten, Leitten Consulting, discuss Brian's latest findings related to DME investment and their outlook on competitive bidding. Update: FTC Ban of Noncompetes Blocked thumbnail Update: FTC Ban of Noncompetes Blocked A new ruling this week means that the ban on noncompete agreements cannot and will not go into effect in September. The FTC has not yet said whether they will appeal the decision, but Victoria Graham, a spokesperson for the FTC, said they are considering that option. The FTC could also choose to address noncompete agreements in a different manner, perhaps through enforcement actions. Updates To Lymphedema Benefit thumbnail Updates To Lymphedema Benefit A recent article by Medtrade Monday outlined the latest news regarding the lymphedema benefit. CarePro Medical Hosts DME Champion Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks thumbnail CarePro Medical Hosts DME Champion Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks On Monday, August 5, CarePro Home Medical in Coralville, Iowa hosted an event for Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. The group discussed the need for H.R.5555 passage at the end of 2024. How FEMA Can Help DMEPOS Businesses Prep for Natural Disasters thumbnail How FEMA Can Help DMEPOS Businesses Prep for Natural Disasters FEMA's latest site update benefits DMEPOS businesses by assisting them in preparing for natural disasters. Ronda Vlog: Two Important Updates: Oxygen Testing and Home Assessment for Manual Wheelchairs Clarification thumbnail Ronda Vlog: Two Important Updates: Oxygen Testing and Home Assessment for Manual Wheelchairs Clarification Check out these updates from Ronda Buhrmester regarding oxygen testing and clarification on home assessment for manual wheelchairs! 75/25 Medicare Impact Survey thumbnail 75/25 Medicare Impact Survey AAHomecare is spearheading a nation-wide initiative to measure the impact of the expired Medicare fee-for-service 75/25 blended rate for non-bid non-rural areas on the HME community and Medicare patients' access to medically necessary equipment. Medicare Advantage Plans Under Scrutiny for HME Denials thumbnail Medicare Advantage Plans Under Scrutiny for HME Denials The coverage of HME by Medicare Advantage plans has recently come under fire. At the VGM Heartland Conference on June 11, stakeholders highlighted a critical issue; Medicare Advantage plans are allegedly denying coverage unjustly.