Shaking things up in state and local tax
Shaking things up in state and local tax
We are pleased to provide the following updates on state tax issues impacting the digital economy. The Sutherland SALT Team will continue to monitor these and other Digital Economy developments. Please visit the Sutherland SALT Digital Economy Forum to learn more, and please contact one of us if you have questions regarding the Forum.
Texas…
The Tennessee Department of Revenue issued an interesting ruling addressing the taxability of two types of Internet-based services. The Department determined that the first type (facilitating remote access to the user’s computer) was a non-taxable service and the downloaded Java applet was software but not the true object of the transaction. The Department determined that…
We are pleased to announce the launch of the new Sutherland SALT Digital Economy Forum, which provides resources, legislative monitoring and advocacy, and strategic counsel on the state taxation of the Digital Economy. To access free resources on the taxation of the Digital Economy, click on the Digital Economy Forum link at the top of…
The Virginia Tax Commissioner concluded in two recent rulings that a reseller of mobile telephone services is not a “telephone company” for purposes of the Virginia Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) tax and therefore is not subject to the higher BPOL tax rate levied against telephone companies. Va. Dept. of Taxation, Pub. Doc. Nos. 12-182 & 12-183 (Nov. 13, 2012). The taxpayer, a limited partnership, is not licensed by the FCC or the state regulatory agency, though its two partners are licensed by the FCC.Continue Reading Virginia Commissioner: Reseller of Mobile Telephone Services Not a “Telephone Company”
The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the Appellate Tax Board’s costs-of-performance decision in the AT&T case. Comm’r of Revenue v. AT&T Corp., Dkt. No. 11-P-1462 (Mass. App. Ct. July 13, 2012). The Court issued an unpublished decision that granted summary disposition in favor of AT&T. In June 2011, the ATB determined that AT&T had properly…
The California Supreme Court held that taxpayers may file a class action claim against a municipal government entity for the refund of the telephone users tax (TUT). Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S174507 (Cal. July 25, 2011).
The City of Los Angeles imposes the TUT on customers who use telephone communications…
The Virginia Supreme Court recently issued an interesting decision related to the minimum tax on telecommunications companies. The court held that the State Corporation Commission (“SCC”) did not have authority to exclude the taxpayer’s Internet-related revenues from the gross receipts it certifies to the Department of Taxation (“Department”). Level 3 Comm’ns, LLC v. State Corp. Comm’n, 710 S.E.2d 474 (Va. June 9, 2011).
Level 3, a telecommunications company, provides wholesale Internet services to Internet service providers. It maintains an extensive network in Virginia and is thus subject to Virginia’s minimum tax on telecommunications companies (telecommunications companies are subject to either a corporate income tax or a minimum tax on gross receipts). The minimum tax computation is a two-step process:
Continue Reading Virginia Supreme Court Includes Internet-Related Revenue in Tax Base (Sort of)
In City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc., Case No. 16-08-03280, the Oregon Circuit Court reversed its earlier ruling that the City of Eugene’s registration and license fees imposed on cable Internet access services are preempted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), and that the fees violated the Uniformity Clause of the Oregon Constitution.
This case arose when the City of Eugene filed an action to collect a registration fee and license fee imposed under City Ordinance 20083 from a cable Internet access provider. The registration fee requires each entity engaging in telecommunications activities to register and pay a 2% annual fee on gross revenues derived from providing telecommunications services within the City’s public rights of way. The license fee requires each entity using the City’s right-of-way to provide telecommunications services to pay a license fee of 7% of its gross revenues derived from providing telecommunications services in the city. In an earlier ruling, the Court found that cable modem services (Internet access services delivered using a cable modem) were subject to both the registration fee and the license fee. Upon reconsideration, the Court determined cable modem service was not a telecommunications service under the Ordinance.Continue Reading Oregon Court Holds That Internet Access Services Are Not Telecommunications, Are Protected by the Internet Tax Freedom Act
