ILNews

Agency erred in taxing certain money

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of State Revenue erred when it concluded certain money collected from customers of a small, rural telecommunications company were subject to Indiana's utility receipts tax, the Indiana Tax Court ruled Thursday.

In Enhanced Telecommunications Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0801-TA-1, Enhanced Telecommunications challenged the imposition of the URT on subscriber line charges (SLC) and federal universal service contribution recoveries (FUSCR) for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 tax years.

As a telecommunications company, Enhanced is subject to the URT and that tax is imposed on the company's entire taxable gross receipts, per Indiana Code. The Tax Court had to decide if the SLCs and FUSCRs are excluded from Enhanced's gross receipts pursuant to I.C. Section 6-2.3-3-4(b) because they are considered fees or surcharges.

Giving those terms their plain meaning because they are not defined by the legislature in the statute, Judge Thomas Fisher concluded the SLCs and FUSCRs are fees or surcharges separate from and in addition to Enhanced's basic monthly service charges, which aren't included in a taxpayer's gross receipts for purposes of the URT.

The Tax Court also determined the distributions Enhanced received through various federal and state subsidy programs aren't subject to the URT. The Department of State Revenue argued they would be subject to the tax because they are settlements pursuant to I.C. Section 6-2.3-3-3, but only legal settlements are considered subject to the tax. The distributions Enhanced received are settlements, but consistent with the definition of "payments, satisfaction, or final adjustments of its accounts," which aren't subject to the tax, wrote the judge.

The department's argument failed that Enhanced received the distributions as a means to recover costs associated with the use and maintenance of its telephone lines, and are directly related to the delivery of utility services because the departments' argument didn't consider I.C. Section 6-2.3-3-10 in its entirety.

"Here, the distributions clearly do not meet the terms of this statute: they are not receipts received for maintenance services provided to a consumer that are directly related to the utility services of that consumer," wrote Judge Fisher. "Rather, the distributions are governmental subsidies that are used to offset the general costs of overall line use and maintenance."

Judge Fisher rejected the department's other arguments as to why the SLCs and FUSCRs should be considered taxable under the URT because the department repeatedly improperly relied on a statutory snippet to supports its position.

The case is remanded to the department for action consistent with the stipulation between Enhanced and the department to the amount of Enhanced's URT overpayment for each of the taxable years at issue if it should prevail in the appeal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT