Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
By Stephen Burroughs and Prentiss Willson
Indiana’s Department Revenue determined that the sale of prepaid phone cards and prepaid cell phones are “telecommunication services” subject to Indiana’s Utility Receipts Tax (URT). The URT is an income tax imposed upon the receipts a taxpayer receives from the sale of utility services. Included within utility services are…
By Mary Alexander and Andrew Appleby
The Maine Board of Tax Appeals determined that a non-itemized installation charge was subject to the service provider tax (SPT) when a portion of the charge included the installation of telecommunications equipment. The taxpayer, an Internet service provider, invoiced customers a single “installation charge” for various services, which included…
By Zachary Atkins and Pilar Mata
A California Court of Appeal held that a mobile telecommunications service provider could pursue refund actions against local taxing authorities in California without first having to refund the disputed taxes to its customers. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, New Cingular, the provider, filed refund claims against 132 California cities…
By Zachary Atkins and Andrew Appleby
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed a 2013 trial court ruling denying Sprint Nextel Corporation’s motion to dismiss the attorney general’s False Claims Act complaint. In a slip opinion, the Appellate Division concluded that N.Y. Tax Law § 1105(b)(2), which the state attorney general contends imposes tax…
By Mary Alexander and Timothy Gustafson
In an administrative order, the Oregon Department of Revenue (1) repealed a rule related to Oregon’s Multistate Tax Compact (MTC) statute, (2) changed the method for utility and telecommunication providers to elect a double-weighted sales factor and (3) provided instructions on the time to adjust a return based on…
By Mary Alexander and Andrew Appleby
The Tennessee Court of Appeals held a wide area network (WAN) service provided by IBM was not taxable because the true object of the service was not a “telecommunications service.” IBM’s WAN service was a technological infrastructure that enabled remote access to information by linking geographically separated computers. The…
By Zachary Atkins and Douglas Mo
A Florida trial court ruled that imposing different tax rates on cable and satellite television services did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The statute in question imposes a statewide communications services tax at a higher rate on satellite service than…
By Shane Lord and Timothy Gustafson
The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that a taxpayer’s wholesale service of converting end-user information into Internet protocol was an “enhanced” service for which the true object or primary purpose was to provide the non-taxable service of “Internet access” and not the taxable service of “telecommunications.” Adopting definitions set forth…
By Saabir Kapoor and Timothy Gustafson
The California Court of Appeal, in affirming summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles, concluded that the taxpayer, j2 Global Communications, Inc., did not produce evidence to demonstrate that its purchase of telecommunications services was exempt from the City’s communication users tax (CUT) under the Internet…
By Nicole Boutros and Pilar Mata
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that dial-up internet services were taxable local telephone services when analyzing an Internal Revenue Service bankruptcy claim for federal excise taxes (FET). The taxpayer, WorldCom, Inc., purchased central-office-based remote access (COBRA) services from local telephone companies to provide internet…
