Arizona Court of Appeals Holds Prepaid Wireless Provider Liable for State's 911 Tax
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed an Arizona Tax Court decision that ruled that Virgin Mobile USA, LP (Virgin Mobile), as a prepaid wireless service provider, was liable for the state's 911 tax imposed by Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 42-5252(A). Virgin Mobile USA, LP v. Dept. of Revenue, No. 1 CA-TX 11-0005 (Ariz. App. Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012).
Between October 2002 and July 2006, Virgin Mobile remitted state 911 taxes to Arizona for prepaid wireless services it sold in Arizona. Asserting that the 911 tax was not applicable to providers of prepaid wireless services, Virgin Mobile filed a refund claim with the Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR). The DOR subsequently denied the refund claim, and Virgin Mobile protested that denial. The parties went on to litigate the applicability of the 911 tax to prepaid wireless services before an administrative law judge, who again rejected Virgin Mobile's claim. Virgin Mobile then appealed to the Arizona Tax Court, which held that Virgin Mobile was liable for the 911 tax. Virgin Mobile next appealed the Tax Court's decision to the Court of Appeals, where the issue was whether the 911 tax applies to the prepaid wireless services. Virgin Mobile argued that it does not and presented the court with three related arguments to that effect.
The first argument relied on the differences in the statutory definitions of "provider" and "wireless provider." For purposes of imposing the 911 tax, Arizona defines both "wireless provider" and "provider." Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 42-5252(A), the 911 tax "is levied on every provider." Virgin Mobile argued that the use of the term "every provider" without also including the term "wireless provider" in Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 42-5252(A) means that "wireless providers" are not subject to the 911 tax. The court examined the use of the term within the specific context of Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 42-5252 and reasoned that when the statute imposes the 911 tax on "every provider," the term "every provider" is the generic term for both "provider" and "wireless provider." Thus, the court concluded that Virgin read the term "provider" in the imposition statute too narrowly, so the court rejected the argument. Id. at paras. 10-11.
Second, Virgin Mobile argued that the 911 tax is imposed on services that are billed monthly, so the tax does not apply to the Virgin Mobile's prepaid wireless services because Virgin Mobile does not bill for its prepaid services each month. The court explained that, even if Virgin Mobile does not have customers whom it bills monthly, it is required, as a wireless provider, to calculate and remit the 911 tax monthly. So, while it is true that the statute computes the 911 tax on a monthly basis and that the tax should be remitted monthly, it is not true that the tax only applies to services that are billed monthly. Thus, the court concluded that Virgin Mobile's system for billing its prepaid wireless customers did not affect the requirement that Virgin Mobile pay the 911 tax. Id. at paras. 14-15.
Virgin Mobile relied on the fact that Arizona incorporates the Federal Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act (MTSA) to make its third argument. The MTSA provides sourcing rules for mobile telecommunications. Virgin Mobile asserted that the 911 tax can only be levied and collected if Arizona is a taxing situs as defined by the MTSA. But the MTSA's sourcing rules "do not apply to the determination of the taxing situs of prepaid telephone calling services." 4 U.S.C. sec. 116(c)(1). Thus, Virgin Mobile argued that its prepaid wireless services are not subject to the 911 tax because the MTSA's rules for determining the taxing situs of wireless services specifically exclude any wireless services that are prepaid. Once again, the court rejected Virgin Mobile's argument by holding that Arizona's adoption of the MTSA and its exception for prepaid services does not, by implication, lead to a conclusion that Arizona cannot be a tax situs for prepaid wireless services. Id. at paras. 19-20.
The holding of this case--that providers of prepaid wireless services are required to pay the Arizona 911 telecommunication services excise tax--is interesting in light of the fact that Arizona enacted legislation that creates a new prepaid wireless 911 excise tax earlier this year. Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 198 (2012), (We reported on the legislation in April, and you can read our article here.)
In an article discussing this legislation before it was enacted, Rep. Bob Robson (R-Chandler), the co-sponsor of the legislation, was quoted as saying, "What I'm trying to do is recognize that there has been a revenue stream that has not been collected from." Cale Ottens, Lawmaker Proposes 911 System Tax on Prepaid Cellphone Plans, Cronkite News Service (Feb. 14, 2012). The implication of Robson's statement was that Arizona did not subject prepaid wireless plans to the 911 tax.
The new legislation tweaks the very language in Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 42-5252 upon which Virgin Mobile based its arguments. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 42-5252 (effective Jan. 1, 2014). But, more significantly, the new legislation creates the Prepaid Wireless Telecommunications E911 Excise Tax, an entirely new tax that clearly applies to prepaid wireless services and will take effect January 1, 2014. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. secs. 42-5401, 42-5402, 42-5403, 42-5404 (all effective Jan. 1, 2014); Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 198 (2012).
Nevertheless, as evidenced by the DOR's denial of Virgin Mobile's claim for a refund of 911 taxes collected between 2002 and 2006 (which, in turn, precipitated Virgin Mobile's subsequent appeals to the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals), the DOR has long taken the position that prepaid wireless services are subject to the 911 tax. Thus, the DOR apparently views the new legislation as simply providing a clear statutory basis and mechanism for collecting the tax.
Transaction (buying or selling things), Tax (the tax on this activity), Resources (our people, our website, our support services) - TTR, Inc.
TTR has a website that companies subscribe to and use daily. This website provides a list of everything that can be bought or sold in the U.S. It provides simple answers to whether buying or selling these items is taxable (subject to a sales tax or other tax), and it provides all the legal authority to support these tax answers.
TTR likes to keep things simple and fun, which is why it has great people who provide help to clients on any support questions they have about transaction tax issues.
Please visit TTR on the web at www.ttrus.com or call 866.578.8193.
Texas Releases Detailed Guidance on Exempt Organizations
Thursday, October 18th, 2018 -The Texas Comptroller has released a publication that provides detailed information on how sales and use tax a...
Telephone Answering Services Taxable in Arkansas
Tuesday, October 16th, 2018 -The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration recently ruled that the service of answering calls on be...
Washington Provides Guidance on Lodging Tax for Online...
Friday, October 12th, 2018 -The Washington Department of Revenue released updated guidance that provides tax reporting information for bed...
Economic Nexus in West Virginia
Wednesday, October 10th, 2018 -The West Virginia State Tax Department announced that it will require remote sellers to begin collecting sales...
Idaho Provides Guidance on the Exemption for Medical...
Monday, October 8th, 2018 -The Idaho State Tax Commission recently released guidance that explains Idaho's sales and use tax laws for buy...
Arkansas Does Not Follow Federal Law on Foreign Income
Friday, October 5th, 2018 -The Arkansas Department of Taxation and Finance recently released an opinion that says the state does not conf...