By Dmitrii Gabrielov and Tim Gustafson

The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that all of DIRECTV’s South Carolina customer subscription receipts were properly sourced to the state for purposes of determining DIRECTV’s corporate income tax apportionment factor due to the location of its satellite signal delivery. South Carolina’s apportionment statute requires a taxpayer to

By Charles Capouet and Tim Gustafson

On June 15, 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that property tax recovery charges and carrier cost recovery charges imposed by a telecommunications service provider of long distance telephone service on its customers were not subject to service provider tax for the tax years 2008 – 2010. The

The Georgia General Assembly passed significant tax legislation impacting selected industries, but failed to pass a number of broader tax bills:

  • Passed legislation impacts telecommunications, film production and music production companies and causes the review of all income and sales and use tax exemptions.
  • Stalled legislation included the reduction of the individual income tax rate,

By Nicole Boutros and Scott Wright

A New York State Division of Tax Appeals administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that a telecommunications provider’s electricity purchases were not exempt from sales tax as sales for resale. In so doing, the ALJ rejected the taxpayer’s assertion that it resold electricity by incorporating it into its telecommunications services

On January 30, 2017, the California Legislature Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation held an informational hearing on “Life after Lucent: Administering California’s Technology Transfer Agreement Law.” The California State Board of Equalization and the Board’s staff are currently wrestling with the meaning of the Technology Transfer Act provisions in sections 6011 and 6012

On December 29, 2016, a New York City administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Sprint’s long distance telecommunications service fees were exempt from the City’s Utility Tax. In the Matter of the Petitions of U.S. Sprint Communications Co., LP, TAT (H) 14-12 (UT) et al. Sutherland represented Sprint in the matter.

  • The ALJ concluded