Travelocity.com v. Comptroller, 250 A.3d 175

Travelocity operated an online travel intermediary (2003–2011) that listed third‑party hotel rooms and rental cars, forwarded booking requests to vendors, collected customers’ payments (was merchant of record), and paid hotels/carroental agencies the net rate plus taxes.
Contracts between Travelocity and hotels/car-rental companies expressly disclaimed sale or transfer of inventory to Travelocity, granted only the right to make rooms/vehicle inventory available for booking, and confirmed Travelocity bore no risk of loss.
The Maryland Comptroller audited Travelocity for March 1, 2003–April 30, 2011 and assessed roughly $6.4 million (tax, interest, penalties); the Tax Court held Travelocity liable for the sales & use tax but not grossly negligent and substantially reduced the assessed amount; the Circuit Court affirmed.
In 2015 the General Assembly amended the Tax‑General Article to add an explicit "accommodations intermediary" definition to the statutory definition of "vendor."
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed: under the pre‑2015 Tax Code, Travelocity was not a “vendor” that sold or delivered tangible personal property and thus was not liable for sales & use tax for the audit period.

Issue	Plaintiff (Travelocity) Argument	Defendant (Comptroller) Argument	Held
Was Travelocity liable as a "vendor" for sales & use tax (i.e., did it "sell" or "deliver" tangible personal property)?	Travelocity: it only facilitated bookings; it never acquired title, inventory, or risk of loss, so it did not "sell" or "deliver" the rooms/cars.	Comptroller: Travelocity acted as merchant of record, accepted payment, and effectuated the transfer of the right to occupy/use, so it was a vendor liable for tax.	Held: Travelocity did not "sell" or "deliver" under the pre‑2015 Tax Code and therefore was not a vendor; reversed Tax Court and Circuit Court.
Was Travelocity grossly negligent under Tax‑Gen. §13‑1102(b), exposing it to extended assessment/penalties?	Travelocity: there was good‑faith dispute; not grossly negligent.	Comptroller: Travelocity’s position made it liable for penalties/extended assessment.	Not reached (court resolved case on undisputed nonliability).
Was the tax recovery charge part of the taxable price under Tax‑Gen. §11‑302?	Travelocity: tax recovery charge is not part of taxable price.	Comptroller: recovery charge should be included in taxable price.	Not reached (court resolved case on nonliability).

Gore Enter. Holdings, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury, 437 Md. 492, 87 A.3d 1263 (Md. 2014) (standard of review—Tax Court factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; legal conclusions reviewed de novo when based on statutory interpretation)
Maryland State Comptroller of Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147, 64 A.3d 453 (Md. 2013) (agency deference when Tax Court interprets tax law)
Ramsay, Scarlett & Co., Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury, 302 Md. 825, 490 A.2d 1296 (Md. 1985) (court may reverse Tax Court order premised on erroneous conclusion of law)
M. E. Rockhill, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury, 205 Md. 226, 107 A.2d 93 (Md. 1954) (statutory construction limits tax liability where statute does not reach particular transaction)
Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md. v. Maryland Dept. of Gen. Servs., 371 Md. 221, 808 A.2d 782 (Md. 2002) (ambiguity in statutory language can appear in application to specific facts)
Expedia, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 120 A.3d 623 (D.C. 2015) (contrasting treatment in other jurisdictions—OTCs as vendors under different statutes)
Travelocity.com LP v. Wyoming Dep’t of Revenue, 329 P.3d 131 (Wyo. 2014) (another jurisdiction’s analysis treating OTCs as vendors under its statutory scheme)