2004 state study and report on telecommunications taxation · league of cities, and united states...
TRANSCRIPT
-
2004 State Study and Report On Telecommunications Taxation
by the Telecommunications Tax Task Force of the Council On State Taxation (COST)
-
2004 State Study and Report On Telecommunications TaxationMarch, 2005
by the Telecommunications Tax Task Force of the Council On State Taxation (COST)
CCH INCORPORATEDChicago
-
ii
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional ser-vice, and that the authors are not offering such advice in this publication. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent Professional person should be sought.
ISBN: 0-8080-1306-8
CCH INCORPORATED4025 W. Peterson Ave.Chicago, IL 60646-60851 800 248 3248http://tax.cchgroup.com
© 2005, Council on State Taxation122 C Street, NW, Suite 330,Washington D.C. 20001
For more information contact:Stephen Kranz: [email protected]
No claim is made to original government works; however within this Product orPublication, the following are subject to CCH’s copyright: (1) the gathering, compi-lation, and arrangement of such government materials; (2) the magnetic translation and digital conversion of data, if applicable; (3) the historical, statutory and other notes and references; and (4) the commentary and other material.
All rights ReservedPrinted in the United States of America
-
iii
About the Council On State Taxation
The Council On State Taxation (COST) is a non-profit association based in Wash-ington, D.C., which has an independent membership of more than 570 major multistate corporations from all sectors of industry engaged in interstate and inter-national business. COST’s objective is to preserve and promote the equitable and nondiscriminatory state and local taxation of multi-jurisdictional business entities. The members of the COST Telecommunications Tax Task Force who participated in this study consist of numerous companies who offer a broad range of telecom-munications services in every jurisdiction throughout the United States.
Specifically, individuals at the following companies participated in the effort required to prepare the 2004 State Study: ALLTEL Corporation, AT&T Corporation, BellSouth Corporation, Cingular Wireless LLC, Level 3 Communications, Nextel Communica-tions, Qwest Communications, SBC Communications, Sprint Corporation, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Verizon Communications, Verizon Wireless. Questions about the study may be directed to COST Tax Counsel, Stephen Kranz at [email protected] or (202) 904-7829. COST would like to express its gratitude to Brandee Tilman, a recipient of the 2004-2005 COST / Georgetown University Law Center Fellowship, for her assistance in the preparation of this report.
-
iv
Table of Contents
PART I — Introduction and 50 State Survey . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction to the 2004 State Study and Report On Telecommunication Taxation . . . 250 State Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 States Listed Alphabetically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 States Listed by Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Telecommunication Specific Legislative Activity Since 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Methodology and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
PART II — Analysis of Individual States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
PART III — Comparison Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Top 10 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Ten Largest States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
-
1
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
PART I
Introduction and 50 State Survey
-
2
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Introduction to the 2004 State Study and Report On Telecommunications Taxation
This 2004 50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation (‘’2004 State Study’’), prepared by the Telecommunications Tax Task Force of the Council On State Taxation (‘’COST’’), documents the current taxation of telecommunica-tions. The 2004 State Study analyzes changes that have occurred in the taxation of telecommunications since the 2001 State Study.
Background
The concept in developing the original study in 1999 (‘’1999 State Study’’) was to document the complex taxation of telecommunications providers and services under state and local transaction and property taxes, including certain special fees and taxes. The 1999 State Study highlighted the cumbersome and burdensome nature of the situation by comparing the relative tax and administrative burdens imposed on both general business and telecommunications providers and services under state and local transaction and property taxes.
Members of the COST Telecommunications Tax Task Force compiled the 1999 State Study to provide the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce (‘’ACEC’’) with information documenting the onerous federal, state, and local level of taxation imposed on telecommunications. The 1999 State Study was presented to the ACEC at its second meeting in New York City on September 14, 1999.
The 1999 State Study highlighted the problems faced by telecommunications pro-viders who are subject to a myriad of taxes imposed on different types of services by a multitude of jurisdictions. It also contained a lengthy discussion of the evolution of the taxation and regulation of the industry, recent developments in telecommunications technology, administrative complexities of the current system, tax policy concerns and options for simplification and/or reduction of taxes.
The original study, and each subsequent version, has generated substantial interest from the public and private sectors. The data documented in the study has been ref-erenced in numerous articles and studies1 and it is the focal point for state and federal policy debates over telecommunications tax reform.
The Federal Discussion
The majority report of the ACEC, presented by Governor Gilmore to Congress in April of 2000, included a number of recommendations related to the taxation of telecommunications. Specifically, it advocated the repeal of the federal excise tax, which was first enacted to fund the Spanish American war.
The majority report also recommended simplification of state and local telecom-munications taxes in accordance with an Option A (single, statewide tax) or an Option B (local taxes may be imposed in accordance with specified rules including a uniform tax base between the state and local tax jurisdictions). The simplification recommen-dations contained in the majority report can be traced to the proposal made by the telecommunications industry at the ACEC meeting in December of 1999,2 after the first study was released.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — In t roduct ion
-
3
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Finally, the majority report advocated the elimination of the excess tax burden on telecommunications providers and the removal of multiple and discriminatory taxation of telecommunications services and property.
Since the majority report of the ACEC was first presented, federal policy makers have given increasing attention to state taxation of telecommunications services.3 Con-vergence of technologies, regulatory issues and the bundling of telecommunications services with other products and services have spurred a discussion between the impacted industries and federal policy makers on these and related tax issues. This study attempts to quantify some of the data relevant to those discussions.
The State Discussion
As a result of the ACEC recommendations and potential federal legislation the State and Local Government organizations and representatives of the industry began the Telecommunications Tax Reform Initiative (TTRI) in 1999. Those efforts were folded into the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP). Beginning in December of 2004, the National Governor’s Association, National Conference of State Legislators, The Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and United States Conference of Mayors, renewed discussions with telecommunications providers and other impacted industry members regard-ing communications tax modernization. As documented in the study, a number of states have taken steps to reform parts of their telecommunications tax structure. Much of the discussion at the state level and among the state policymaker associa-tions is based on the data captured in this study.
The 2004 State Study
The process used by the COST Telecommunications Tax Task Force to prepare the 2004 State Study varied slightly from the process used for the prior years. In prior years, the taxes and fees imposed in each state and the District of Columbia were generally compiled by one member of the Task Force and reviewed by a second member. For the 2004 State Study at least one member and in most cases two members of the Task Force reviewed the data from the 2001 state sheet and made revisions to reflect the law as of July 1, 2004. For each state, the data is based on the assumption that the taxpayer is either a statewide general business (i.e., the business would have at least one store in each taxing jurisdiction) or a statewide provider of telecommunications.
Consistent with the earlier versions of the study, the 2004 State Study provides a series of 50-state comparison charts with consolidated state and local data. The study also includes various graphs that display the results for the ten most burdensome states and the ten most populous states. The Study also includes a map comparing equipment sales tax exemptions for manufacturing and telecommunications. New for the 2004 State Study are charts comparing key findings on the number of returns and rates from this study with findings from the 2001 State Study.
Report of Findings
The 2004 State Study shows that the average effective rate of state and local transac-tion taxes for telecommunications services is 14.17%, compared to only 6.12% for
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — In t roduct ion
-
4
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
general businesses nationwide. Transaction taxes for telecommunications services include any state and local taxes applied to the cost of the service or the provision of the line to the consumer. Transaction taxes for general businesses are based on the traditional sales tax imposed on sales of tangible personal property and compa-rable transaction taxes. When accounting for federal transaction taxes the average effective rate for telecommunications services is 18.17% compared to 6.12% for general businesses nationwide.4
The following chart compares the change in the average effective rate from the 2001 study to the 2004 study. The comparison shows a slight decrease in the local rate from 6.8% to 6.5% and a slight increase in the state rate from 7.1% to 7.4%. Two factors account for the majority of the change. First the 2004 study uses a higher average cost for service. As a result the conversion of flat charges to an average effective rate produces a lower average effective tax rate even though the actual tax per line did not change. Second the change reflects the simplification reforms enacted in some states shifting the tax burden from local level taxes to state level taxes.
The total number of taxes imposed on telecommunications services is almost three times greater than for general businesses (123 versus 344). Compared to general busi-nesses, telecommunications providers have 1,103 more transaction tax bases and 6,683 more taxing jurisdictions with which to contend. Telecommunication providers must file 47,921 returns compared to 7,501 returns for general businesses. These inequities stem from outmoded statutes that originated during the era when telecommunications companies were closely regulated monopolies. These outmoded and discriminatory tax schemes no longer work in today’s competitive and highly dynamic environment.
The administrative filing requirements documented in the 2004 State Study reflect a decrease in filing required by telecommunications companies across the nation (47,921 in 2004 compared to 66,918 in 2001). Tax simplification reforms in Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah reduced the number of returns by 18,610. While the
Comparison of Tax Rates, 2001 - 2004: Local & State Rates for Gen Bus vs. Telco
1.3% 1.3%
4.7% 4.8%
6.8%6.6%
7.1%7.6%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
2001 2004
Year
Rat
e
Gen Bus Local
Gen Bus State
Telco Local
Telco State
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — In t roduct ion
-
5
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
simplification reforms reduced the filing burdens for providers of telecommunications services, the filing requirements still exceed the filing requirements for sellers of goods whose burdens also decreased during the comparison period (7,501 in 2004 compared to 8,284 in 2001). The following charts highlight the reduction in filing requirements for providers of telecommunications services.
Total Number of Returns Required Nationwide
66,918
47,921
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
2001 2004
Year
Num
ber
of R
etur
ns
The decrease is due largely to the work undertaken by Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee and Utah to simplify their telecommunications tax structures.
Decreases in the Number of Telco ReturnsFrom 2000 To 2004
1,640
13 24 86 87 338
3,901
8,988
3,743
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0LA AL DE SC OH UT TN FL IL
Nine Best-Improved States
Num
ber
of F
ewer
Ret
urns
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — In t roduct ion
-
6
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Sixteen states do not provide for any vendor compensation for either telecom-munications providers or general businesses. These states account for 88 of the 344 taxes that apply to telecommunications providers and 25 of the 123 that apply to general businesses.
The 2004 State Study also documents the number of states that have telecommuni-cations equipment exemptions or reduced sales tax rates applicable to telecommunica-tions equipment (17 in 2004, from 16 in 2001) as compared to those states that have a manufacturing exemption or reduced rate applicable to manufacturing equipment (37 in 2001 and 2004). A fundamental tenet of tax policy is that tax systems should avoid the pyramiding of taxes (i.e., if a state taxes the final product or service under its sales and use tax, it should not tax the business inputs that comprise the taxable good or service).5 This policy principle has been implemented in the state sales and use tax statutes of 37 states through the enactment of manufacturing equipment exemptions and in 17 states through the enactment of telecommunications equipment exemptions. The same principle should be implemented in the 20 states that have a manufacturing exemption but no telecommunications equipment exemption through the enactment of such exemptions. In addition, the 6 states that do not exempt business inputs should recognize the importance of such exemptions to economic growth and the creation of a sound tax system that avoids the pyramiding of taxes, as they streamline their sales tax systems. Mississippi enacted legislation in 2003 to provide an exemption to machinery and equipment used to provide broadband telecommunications services. Virginia enacted legislation in 2004 that repealed the telecommunications equipment exemption effective in August of 2004. The following map shows the status of sales tax exemptions for manufacturing equipment and telecommunications equipment as of July 1, 2004.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — In t roduct ion
Sales Tax Equipment Exemptions
Both (14)broadband (2)Mfg (23)None (6)No Sales Tax (5)Teleco only (1)
Law in effect July 1, 2004
Sales and Use Tax Equipment Exemptions
Teleco only(D.C.)
-
7
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
COST Telecommunications Task Force Conclusions
Deregulation of the telecommunications industry, convergence of technologies and providers and increased competition continue to have an impact on the competitive marketplace. The state and local tax laws continue to impose high levels of industry-specific taxation on telecommunications services. While some states have begun the process of reforming the state and local tax structure, much more is needed to reduce the high level of telecommunications taxation and administrative burden imposed at most levels of government. In addition, the equipment exemptions that many state statutes have granted to the manufacturing industry to encourage growth and expansion of business in such states should be extended, as was done by Mississippi, to the telecommunications industry to encourage network expansion in such states. As business and residential consumers become increasingly reliant on communications services provided over the nation’s telecommunications net-works, the burdens and complexities imposed by the existing telecommunications tax system will continue to have a substantial impact on the cost of such services to consumers. The burdens and complexities of the existing telecommunications tax system are evidenced by the data contained in this 2004 State Study.
Currently, the language in many tax statutes results in the imposition of different taxes on similar telecommunications services depending on the historic classification of the business providing the service. New technologies are having an impact on the types of services being provided to customers, the method of delivery and the means of accounting for such services.
The tax system has not kept pace with changes in telecommunications technology, generally rendering the current system inequitable and unworkable. The telecommuni-cations tax system should be overhauled to eliminate the discriminatory administrative and tax burden facing telecommunications providers and services.
Members of the COST Telecommunications Tax Task Force look forward to working with other industries and state and local government representatives to effect legisla-tive changes that would modernize the tax policy with respect to telecommunications services and property.
Footnotes
1 See ‘’Fixing the Phone-Tax Mess before it Gets Worse,’’ Scott Palladino and Stacy Mazer, Telecommunications Tax Policies: Implications for the Digital Age, National Governors’ Association, Washington, D.C., February 2000; Business Week, May 8, 2000; Joseph Cordes, Charlene Kalenkoski, and Harry Watson, The Tangled Web of Taxing Talk: Telecommunications Taxes in the New Millenium, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, September 2000; Jerry Hausman, “Efficiency Effects on the U.S. Economy from Wireless Taxation,” National Tax Journal, Vol. 53 No.3 Part 2, p. 734 (September 2000); Scott Mackey, Telecommunications and the Tangle of Taxes, National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, Colorado; Stephen Pociask, Telenomic Research “Taxing High-Speed Services: A Quantification of the Effects on the DSL Industry and Universal Service,” New Millennium Research Council (April 26, 2004).
2 See Proposal for State and Local Taxation of the Telecommunications Industry, submitted to the Advisory Com-mission on Electronic Commerce on November 15, 1999.
3 See Rep. Pickering’s (MS) “Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act” -- H.R. 3489, 106th Cong. (1999). “Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act” – H.R. 3184, 108th Cong. (2003); Sen. 1736, 108th (2003). Rep. Istook and Sen. Enzi introduced each Act, respectively. VoIP bills introduced in the 108th Congress: S. 2281 (“Sununu bill”), H.R. 3129 (“Pickering bill”) and H.R. 4757 (“Stearns-Boucher bill”) (2003).
4 The federal rate of 4% reflects the federal excise tax on telecommunications plus an additional 1% to reflect the impact of the universal fund surcharges.
5 See COST Special Report: Sales Taxation of Business Inputs, January 25, 2005.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — In t roduct ion
-
8
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : A lphabet ica l L i s t ing
# State Taxes Total # Taxes
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoAK 1 3 AK 0 4 AK 1 7AL 2 2 AL 1 3 AL 3 5AR 3 6 AR 1 4 AR 4 10AZ 2 2 AZ 1 5 AZ 3 7CA 2 4 CA 1 7 CA 3 11CO 3 4 CO 2 6 CO 5 10CT 0 0 CT 1 4 CT 1 4DE 0 0 DE 1 4 DE 1 4FL 1 2 FL 1 4 FL 2 6GA 1 3 GA 1 4 GA 2 7HI 0 0 HI 1 4 HI 1 4IA 2 3 IA 1 2 IA 3 5ID 2 2 ID 1 2 ID 3 4IL 1 6 IL 1 6 IL 2 12IN 0 1 IN 1 4 IN 1 5KS 1 3 KS 1 3 KS 2 6KY 1 3 KY 1 4 KY 2 7LA 2 4 LA 1 5 LA 3 9MA 0 0 MA 1 3 MA 1 3MD 0 3 MD 1 5 MD 1 8ME 0 0 ME 1 3 ME 1 3MI 0 4 MI 1 2 MI 1 6MN 1 2 MN 1 5 MN 2 7MO 1 3 MO 1 1 MO 2 4MS 1 3 MS 1 4 MS 2 7MT 0 0 MT 0 5 MT 0 5NC 3 1 NC 1 3 NC 4 4ND 2 4 ND 1 3 ND 3 7NE 2 4 NE 1 4 NE 3 8NH 0 0 NH 0 4 NH 0 4NJ 0 0 NJ 1 3 NJ 1 3NM 14 14 NM 1 5 NM 15 19NV 1 3 NV 1 3 NV 2 6NY 1 5 NY 2 8 NY 3 13OH 1 1 OH 4 4 OH 5 5OK 1 1 OK 1 1 OK 2 2OR 0 1 OR 0 4 OR 0 5PA 2 3 PA 1 4 PA 3 7RI 0 0 RI 1 6 RI 1 6SC 2 4 SC 1 4 SC 3 8SD 1 2 SD 1 4 SD 2 6TN 1 5 TN 1 3 TN 2 8TX 1 3 TX 1 7 TX 2 10UT 1 4 UT 1 5 UT 2 9VA 2 4 VA 1 3 VA 3 7VT 0 0 VT 1 3 VT 1 3WA 4 7 WA 2 6 WA 6 13WA DC 0 0 WA DC 1 5 WA DC 1 5WI 2 3 WI 1 4 WI 3 7WV 0 2 WV 1 5 WV 1 7WY 2 2 WY 1 4 WY 3 6
Average 1 3 1 4 2 7
Total 70 136 53 208 123 344
# Local Taxes
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
-
9
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Total Local Tax Rate Total State Tax Rate Total Tax Rate Total Tax Rate Incl. Fed
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoAK 2.50% 6.09% AK 0.00% 3.44% AK 2.50% 9.53% AK 2.50% 13.53%AL 4.00% 5.00% AL 4.00% 6.93% AL 8.00% 11.93% AL 8.00% 15.93%AR 2.38% 7.40% AR 6.00% 8.33% AR 8.38% 15.73% AR 8.38% 19.73%AZ 2.25% 3.70% AZ 5.60% 8.05% AZ 7.85% 11.75% AZ 7.85% 15.75%CA 2.10% 8.85% CA 6.00% 3.43% CA 8.10% 12.28% CA 8.10% 16.28%CO 4.00% 10.15% CO 2.90% 6.98% CO 8.00% 14.15% CO 8.00% 18.15%CT 0.00% 0.00% CT 6.00% 8.01% CT 6.00% 8.01% CT 6.00% 12.01%DE 0.00% 0.00% DE 0.72% 6.88% DE 0.72% 6.88% DE 0.72% 10.88%FL 1.00% 8.39% FL 6.00% 9.76% FL 7.00% 18.15% FL 7.00% 22.15%GA 3.00% 13.41% GA 4.00% 4.49% GA 7.00% 17.90% GA 7.00% 21.90%HI 0.00% 0.00% HI 4.00% 8.04% HI 4.00% 8.04% HI 4.00% 12.04%IA 1.50% 6.44% IA 5.00% 5.00% IA 6.50% 11.44% IA 6.50% 15.44%ID 0.00% 5.90% ID 5.00% 0.26% ID 5.00% 6.16% ID 5.00% 10.16%IL 1.75% 11.31% IL 6.25% 9.64% IL 8.00% 20.95% IL 8.00% 24.95%IN 0.00% 3.31% IN 6.00% 7.85% IN 6.00% 11.16% IN 6.00% 15.16%KS 1.45% 12.13% KS 5.30% 10.20% KS 6.75% 22.33% KS 6.75% 26.33%KY 0.00% 8.32% KY 6.00% 6.54% KY 6.00% 14.86% KY 6.00% 18.86%LA 5.00% 9.28% LA 4.00% 3.50% LA 9.00% 12.78% LA 9.00% 16.78%MA 0.00% 0.00% MA 5.00% 9.30% MA 5.00% 9.30% MA 5.00% 13.30%MD 0.00% 16.90% MD 5.00% 10.41% MD 5.00% 27.31% MD 5.00% 31.31%ME 0.00% 0.00% ME 5.00% 6.37% ME 5.00% 6.37% ME 5.00% 10.37%MI 0.00% 13.15% MI 6.00% 7.00% MI 6.00% 20.15% MI 6.00% 24.15%MN 0.50% 0.50% MN 6.50% 8.26% MN 7.00% 8.76% MN 7.00% 12.76%MO 2.70% 18.81% MO 4.23% 4.98% MO 6.92% 23.79% MO 6.92% 27.79%MS 0.25% 7.19% MS 7.00% 7.44% MS 7.25% 14.63% MS 7.25% 18.63%MT 0.00% 0.00% MT 0.00% 5.98% MT 0.00% 5.88% MT 0.00% 9.88%NC 3.00% 12.36% NC 4.50% 6.47% NC 7.50% 18.83% NC 7.50% 22.83%ND 1.00% 3.85% ND 5.00% 7.67% ND 6.00% 11.52% ND 6.00% 15.52%NE 1.00% 11.57% NE 5.50% 13.65% NE 6.50% 25.22% NE 6.50% 29.22%NH 0.00% 0.00% NH 0.00% 8.31% NH 0.00% 8.31% NH 0.00% 12.31%NJ 0.00% 0.00% NJ 6.00% 8.74% NJ 6.00% 8.74% NJ 6.00% 12.74%NM 1.31% 1.31% NM 5.00% 7.28% NM 6.31% 8.59% NM 6.31% 12.59%NV 0.75% 3.49% NV 6.50% 0.48% NV 7.25% 3.97% NV 7.25% 7.97%NY 4.06% 8.97% NY 4.38% 8.32% NY 8.44% 17.29% NY 8.44% 21.29%OH 1.50% 1.50% OH 6.00% 9.05% OH 7.50% 10.55% OH 7.50% 14.55%OK 3.95% 12.00% OK 4.50% 7.97% OK 8.45% 19.97% OK 8.45% 23.97%OR 0.00% 7.00% OR 0.00% 6.20% OR 0.00% 13.20% OR 0.00% 17.20%PA 0.83% 5.89% PA 6.00% 11.44% PA 6.83% 17.33% PA 6.83% 21.33%RI 0.00% 3.00% RI 7.00% 15.81% RI 7.00% 18.81% RI 7.00% 22.81%SC 0.50% 8.66% SC 5.00% 5.99% SC 5.50% 14.65% SC 5.50% 18.65%SD 1.86% 4.00% SD 4.00% 4.58% SD 5.86% 8.58% SD 5.86% 12.58%TN 2.25% 6.67% TN 7.00% 7.19% TN 9.25% 13.86% TN 9.25% 17.86%TX 2.00% 11.12% TX 6.25% 14.17% TX 8.25% 25.29% TX 8.25% 29.29%UT 1.50% 7.55% UT 4.75% 6.81% UT 6.25% 14.36% UT 6.25% 18.36%VA 1.00% 26.99% VA 3.50% 2.78% VA 4.50% 29.77% VA 4.50% 33.77%VT 0.00% 0.00% VT 6.00% 7.27% VT 6.00% 7.27% VT 6.00% 11.27%WA 2.06% 9.33% WA 6.97% 9.93% WA 9.03% 19.26% WA 9.03% 23.26%WA DC 0.00% 0.00% WA DC 5.75% 14.24% WA DC 5.75% 14.24% WA DC 5.75% 18.24%WI 0.60% 1.06% WI 5.00% 6.07% WI 5.60% 7.13% WI 5.60% 11.13%WV 0.00% 9.65% WV 6.00% 13.81% WV 6.00% 23.46% WV 6.00% 27.46%WY 1.50% 3.64% WY 4.00% 8.45% WY 5.50% 12.09% WY 5.50% 16.09%
Average 1.28% 6.59% 4.83% 7.64% 6.12% 14.17% 6.12% 18.17%
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : A lphabet ica l L i s t ing
-
10
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
# Local Tax Bases # State Tax Bases Total Tax Bases
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoAK 1 3 AK 0 4 AK 1 7AL 1 2 AL 1 3 AL 2 5AR 2 3 AR 1 4 AR 3 7AZ 13 14 AZ 1 5 AZ 14 19CA 1 15 CA 1 2 CA 2 17CO 9 9 CO 1 1 CO 10 10CT 0 0 CT 1 4 CT 1 4DE 0 0 DE 1 5 DE 1 5FL 1 2 FL 1 4 FL 2 6GA 1 3 GA 1 4 GA 2 7HI 0 0 HI 1 4 HI 1 4IA 1 3 IA 1 1 IA 2 4ID 2 2 ID 1 2 ID 3 4IL 1 3 IL 1 6 IL 2 9IN 0 1 IN 1 4 IN 1 5KS 1 3 KS 1 3 KS 2 6KY 1 35 KY 1 4 KY 2 39LA 64 4 LA 1 5 LA 65 9MA 0 0 MA 1 2 MA 1 2MD 0 28 MD 1 5 MD 1 33ME 0 0 ME 1 2 ME 1 2MI 0 2 MI 1 3 MI 1 5MN 1 1 MN 1 4 MN 2 5MO 1 249 MO 1 3 MO 2 252MS 1 132 MS 1 4 MS 2 136MT 0 0 MT 0 1 MT 0 1NC 2 1 NC 1 3 NC 3 4ND 1 2 ND 1 3 ND 2 5NE 1 2 NE 1 2 NE 2 4NH 0 0 NH 0 4 NH 0 4NJ 0 0 NJ 1 3 NJ 1 3NM 1 18 NM 1 5 NM 2 23NV 1 12 NV 1 4 NV 2 16NY 1 5 NY 1 5 NY 2 10OH 1 1 OH 1 4 OH 2 5OK 576 576 OK 1 1 OK 577 577OR 0 83 OR 0 3 OR 0 86PA 2 3 PA 1 4 PA 3 7RI 0 0 RI 1 6 RI 1 6SC 2 4 SC 1 4 SC 3 8SD 0 2 SD 1 1 SD 1 3TN 1 5 TN 1 3 TN 2 8TX 1 3 TX 1 1 TX 2 4UT 1 2 UT 1 3 UT 2 5VA 95 524 VA 1 3 VA 96 527VT 0 0 VT 1 3 VT 1 3WA 3 6 WA 2 6 WA 5 12WA DC 0 0 WA DC 1 5 WA DC 1 5WI 1 3 WI 1 4 WI 2 7WV 0 2 WV 1 5 WV 1 7WY 1 1 WY 1 1 WY 2 2
Average 16 35 1 3 16 38
Total 793 1,769 48 175 841 1,944
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : A lphabet ica l L i s t ing
-
11
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Total # Returns Total # Taxing Juris.
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoAK 7 659 AK 98 92AL 266 1,146 AL 231 307AR 269 1,259 AR 538 835AZ 168 216 AZ 102 102CA 611 2,440 CA 608 824CO 50 1,420 CO 519 519CT 12 24 CT 1 4DE 12 38 DE 1 1FL 12 830 FL 68 312GA 12 1,945 GA 160 481HI 12 16 HI 1 1IA 12 1,148 IA 867 963ID 77 319 ID 11 32IL 12 3,305 IL 131 1,204IN 12 346 IN 1 84KS 12 864 KS 1 262KY 12 3,253 KY 1 272LA 831 1,011 LA 64 177MA 12 14 MA 1 1MD 12 89 MD 1 25ME 12 25 ME 1 1MI 12 113 MI 1 88MN 25 76 MN 12 15MO 12 12 MO 781 781MS 24 845 MS 2 97MT 0 20 MT 0 1NC 0 1,096 NC 0 92ND 12 589 ND 100 134NE 12 2,261 NE 0 572NH 0 40 NH 0 4NJ 12 17 NJ 1 1NM 12 120 NM 274 295NV 12 194 NV 1 64NY 12 5,632 NY 86 588OH 12 16 OH 1 2OK 12 12 OK 577 577OR 0 1,017 OR 0 84PA 12 994 PA 108 182RI 12 43 RI 1 1SC 280 675 SC 269 326SD 12 271 SD 275 339TN 3,936 1,135 TN 328 425TX 12 3,107 TX 1 1,012UT 12 65 UT 275 275VA 12 3,174 VA 96 316VT 12 25 VT 1 1WA 549 4,446 WA 519 848WA DC 12 43 WA DC 1 1WI 12 267 WI 55 124WV 12 1,142 WV 1 93WY 12 107 WY 24 42
Average 147 940 141 272
Total 7,501 47,921 7,196 13,879
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : A lphabet ica l L i s t ing
-
12
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Real Prop Eff Rate Tangible Prop Eff Rate Eff. Tax Rate on Intang Value
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoAK 1.41% 1.41% AK 1.41% 1.41% AK 0.00% 0.00%AL 1.00% 1.50% AL 1.00% 1.50% AL 0.00% 1.50%AR 1.22% 1.22% AR 1.22% 1.22% AR 0.00% 1.22%AZ 4.20% 4.20% AZ 4.20% 4.20% AZ 0.00% 0.00%CA 1.10% 1.10% CA 1.10% 1.10% CA 0.00% 0.00%CO 1.46% 2.23% CO 1.46% 2.23% CO 1.46% 2.23%CT 3.28% 3.28% CT 3.28% 3.28% CT 0.00% 0.00%DE 1.08% 1.08% DE 0.00% 0.00% DE 0.00% 0.00%FL 2.34% 2.15% FL 2.34% 2.15% FL 0.15% 0.10%GA 1.42% 1.42% GA 1.42% 1.42% GA 0.00% 0.00%HI 1.91% 0.00% HI 0.00% 0.00% HI 0.00% 0.00%IA 3.40% 3.40% IA 0.00% 0.00% IA 0.00% 0.00%ID 1.70% 1.70% ID 1.70% 1.70% ID 0.00% 0.00%IL 5.00% 5.00% IL 0.00% 0.00% IL 0.00% 0.00%IN 2.35% 2.35% IN 2.35% 2.35% IN 0.00% 0.00%KS 2.98% 3.94% KS 2.98% 3.94% KS 0.00% 3.94%KY 1.40% 1.40% KY 1.40% 1.40% KY 0.00% 1.40%LA 2.05% 2.05% LA 2.05% 2.05% LA 0.00% 0.00%MA 3.13% 3.13% MA 3.13% 3.13% MA 0.00% 0.00%MD 1.84% 1.84% MD 4.44% 4.44% MD 0.00% 0.00%ME 2.45% 2.45% ME 2.45% 2.70% ME 0.00% 0.00%MI 3.18% 2.54% MI 3.18% 2.54% MI 0.00% 2.54%MN 4.90% 4.90% MN 0.00% 0.00% MN 0.00% 0.00%MO 3.77% 3.77% MO 3.77% 3.77% MO 0.00% 0.00%MS 2.93% 2.93% MS 2.93% 2.93% MS 0.00% 0.00%MT 1.67% 3.34% MT 1.67% 3.34% MT 0.00% 3.34%NC 1.01% 1.01% NC 1.01% 1.01% NC 0.00% 0.00%ND 2.25% 0.00% ND 0.00% 0.00% ND 0.00% 0.00%NE 1.91% 1.90% NE 1.91% 1.90% NE 0.00% 1.90%NH 2.01% 2.01% NH 0.00% 0.00% NH 0.00% 0.00%NJ 3.62% 3.62% NJ 0.00% 2.76% NJ 0.00% 0.00%NM 1.17% 1.17% NM 1.17% 1.17% NM 0.00% 0.00%NV 1.11% 1.11% NV 1.11% 1.11% NV 0.00% 0.00%NY 2.99% 4.73% NY 0.00% 0.00% NY 0.00% 0.00%OH 2.98% 2.98% OH 2.13% 2.13% OH 0.00% 0.00%OK 1.29% 2.67% OK 1.39% 2.67% OK 0.00% 2.67%OR 1.30% 1.30% OR 1.30% 1.30% OR 0.00% 1.30%PA 2.50% 3.09% PA 0.00% 0.00% PA 0.00% 0.00%RI 3.42% 3.42% RI 4.22% 4.22% RI 0.00% 0.00%SC 3.14% 3.14% SC 3.14% 3.14% SC 0.00% 0.00%SD 2.15% 2.15% SD 0.00% 2.15% SD 0.00% 2.15%TN 1.25% 1.67% TN 1.25% 1.67% TN 0.00% 1.67%TX 2.70% 2.70% TX 2.70% 2.70% TX 0.00% 0.00%UT 1.20% 1.20% UT 1.20% 1.20% UT 0.00% 1.20%VA 1.33% 1.33% VA 3.70% 1.33% VA 0.00% 0.00%VT 2.47% 2.47% VT 2.47% 2.37% VT 0.00% 0.00%WA 1.30% 1.30% WA 1.30% 1.30% WA 0.00% 0.00%WA DC 1.85% 1.85% WA DC 3.40% 3.40% WA DC 0.00% 0.00%WI 2.67% 2.86% WI 2.67% 2.86% WI 0.00% 0.00%WV 0.48% 0.48% WV 0.48% 0.48% WV 0.00% 0.00%WY 0.65% 0.79% WY 0.65% 0.79% WY 0.00% 0.79%
Average 2.19% 2.26% 1.70% 1.85% 0.03% 0.55%
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : A lphabet ica l L i s t ing
-
13
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
# Local Taxes # State Taxes Total # Taxes
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoNM 14 14 NY 2 8 NM 15 19WA 4 7 CA 1 7 WA 6 13AR 3 6 TX 1 7 NY 3 13IL 1 6 CO 2 6 IL 2 12NY 1 5 WA 2 6 CA 3 11TN 1 5 IL 1 6 CO 5 10CO 3 4 RI 1 6 AR 4 10CA 2 4 AZ 1 5 TX 2 10LA 2 4 LA 1 5 LA 3 9ND 2 4 MD 1 5 UT 2 9NE 2 4 MN 1 5 NE 3 8SC 2 4 NM 1 5 SC 3 8VA 2 4 UT 1 5 TN 2 8UT 1 4 WA DC 1 5 MD 1 8MI 0 4 WV 1 5 AZ 3 7IA 2 3 MT 0 5 ND 3 7PA 2 3 OH 4 4 PA 3 7WI 2 3 AR 1 4 VA 3 7AK 1 3 CT 1 4 WI 3 7GA 1 3 DE 1 4 GA 2 7KS 1 3 FL 1 4 KY 2 7KY 1 3 GA 1 4 MN 2 7MO 1 3 HI 1 4 MS 2 7MS 1 3 IN 1 4 AK 1 7NV 1 3 KY 1 4 WV 1 7TX 1 3 MS 1 4 WY 3 6MD 0 3 NE 1 4 FL 2 6AL 2 2 PA 1 4 KS 2 6AZ 2 2 SC 1 4 NV 2 6ID 2 2 SD 1 4 SD 2 6WY 2 2 WI 1 4 MI 1 6FL 1 2 WY 1 4 RI 1 6MN 1 2 AK 0 4 OH 5 5SD 1 2 NH 0 4 AL 3 5WV 0 2 OR 0 4 IA 3 5NC 3 1 AL 1 3 IN 1 5OH 1 1 KS 1 3 WA DC 1 5OK 1 1 MA 1 3 MT 0 5IN 0 1 ME 1 3 OR 0 5OR 0 1 NC 1 3 NC 4 4CT 0 0 ND 1 3 ID 3 4DE 0 0 NJ 1 3 MO 2 4HI 0 0 NV 1 3 CT 1 4MA 0 0 TN 1 3 DE 1 4ME 0 0 VA 1 3 HI 1 4MT 0 0 VT 1 3 NH 0 4NH 0 0 IA 1 2 MA 1 3NJ 0 0 ID 1 2 ME 1 3RI 0 0 MI 1 2 NJ 1 3VT 0 0 MO 1 1 VT 1 3WA DC 0 0 OK 1 1 OK 2 2
Average 1 3 1 4 2 7
Total 70 136 53 208 123 344
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : By Rank ing
-
14
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Total State Tax Rate Total Tax Rate Total Tax Rate Incl. Fed
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoVA 1.00% 26.99% RI 7.00% 15.81% VA 4.50% 29.77% VA 4.50% 33.77%MO 2.70% 18.81% WA DC 5.75% 14.24% MD 5.00% 27.31% MD 5.00% 31.31%MD 0.00% 16.90% TX 6.25% 14.17% TX 8.25% 25.29% TX 8.25% 29.29%GA 3.00% 13.41% WV 6.00% 13.81% NE 6.50% 25.22% NE 6.50% 29.22%MI 0.00% 13.15% NE 5.50% 13.65% MO 6.92% 23.79% MO 6.92% 27.79%NC 3.00% 12.36% PA 6.00% 11.44% WV 6.00% 23.46% WV 6.00% 27.46%KS 1.45% 12.13% MD 5.00% 10.41% KS 6.75% 22.33% KS 6.75% 26.33%OK 3.95% 12.00% KS 5.30% 10.20% IL 8.00% 20.95% IL 8.00% 24.95%NE 1.00% 11.57% WA 6.97% 9.93% MI 6.00% 20.15% MI 6.00% 24.15%IL 1.75% 11.31% FL 6.00% 9.76% OK 8.45% 19.97% OK 8.45% 23.97%TX 2.00% 11.12% IL 6.25% 9.64% WA 9.03% 19.26% WA 9.03% 23.26%CO 4.00% 10.15% MA 5.00% 9.30% NC 7.50% 18.83% NC 7.50% 22.83%WV 0.00% 9.65% OH 6.00% 9.05% RI 7.00% 18.81% RI 7.00% 22.81%WA 2.06% 9.33% NJ 6.00% 8.74% FL 7.00% 18.15% FL 7.00% 22.15%LA 5.00% 9.28% WY 4.00% 8.45% GA 7.00% 17.90% GA 7.00% 21.90%NY 4.06% 8.97% AR 6.00% 8.33% PA 6.83% 17.33% PA 6.83% 21.33%CA 2.10% 8.85% NY 4.38% 8.32% NY 8.44% 17.29% NY 8.44% 21.29%SC 0.50% 8.66% NH 0.00% 8.31% AR 8.38% 15.73% AR 8.38% 19.73%FL 1.00% 8.39% MN 6.50% 8.26% KY 6.00% 14.86% KY 6.00% 18.86%KY 0.00% 8.32% AZ 5.60% 8.05% SC 5.50% 14.65% SC 5.50% 18.65%UT 1.50% 7.55% HI 4.00% 8.04% MS 7.25% 14.63% MS 7.25% 18.63%AR 2.38% 7.40% CT 6.00% 8.01% UT 6.25% 14.36% UT 6.25% 18.36%MS 0.25% 7.19% OK 4.50% 7.97% WA DC 5.75% 14.24% WA DC 5.75% 18.24%OR 0.00% 7.00% IN 6.00% 7.85% CO 8.00% 14.15% CO 8.00% 18.15%TN 2.25% 6.67% ND 5.00% 7.67% TN 9.25% 13.86% TN 9.25% 17.86%IA 1.50% 6.44% MS 7.00% 7.44% OR 0.00% 13.20% OR 0.00% 17.20%AK 2.50% 6.09% NM 5.00% 7.28% LA 9.00% 12.78% LA 9.00% 16.78%ID 0.00% 5.90% VT 6.00% 7.27% CA 8.10% 12.28% CA 8.10% 16.28%PA 0.83% 5.89% TN 7.00% 7.19% WY 5.50% 12.09% WY 5.50% 16.09%AL 4.00% 5.00% MI 6.00% 7.00% AL 8.00% 11.93% AL 8.00% 15.93%SD 1.86% 4.00% CO 2.90% 6.98% AZ 7.85% 11.75% AZ 7.85% 15.75%ND 1.00% 3.85% AL 4.00% 6.93% ND 6.00% 11.52% ND 6.00% 15.52%AZ 2.25% 3.70% DE 0.72% 6.88% IA 6.50% 11.44% IA 6.50% 15.44%WY 1.50% 3.64% UT 4.75% 6.81% IN 6.00% 11.16% IN 6.00% 15.16%NV 0.75% 3.49% KY 6.00% 6.54% OH 7.50% 10.55% OH 7.50% 14.55%IN 0.00% 3.31% NC 4.50% 6.47% AK 2.50% 9.53% AK 2.50% 13.53%RI 0.00% 3.00% ME 5.00% 6.37% MA 5.00% 9.30% MA 5.00% 13.30%OH 1.50% 1.50% OR 0.00% 6.20% MN 7.00% 8.76% MN 7.00% 12.76%NM 1.31% 1.31% WI 5.00% 6.07% NJ 6.00% 8.74% NJ 6.00% 12.74%WI 0.60% 1.06% SC 5.00% 5.99% NM 6.31% 8.59% NM 6.31% 12.59%MN 0.50% 0.50% MT 0.00% 5.98% SD 5.86% 8.58% SD 5.86% 12.58%CT 0.00% 0.00% IA 5.00% 5.00% NH 0.00% 8.31% NH 0.00% 12.31%DE 0.00% 0.00% MO 4.23% 4.98% HI 4.00% 8.04% HI 4.00% 12.04%HI 0.00% 0.00% SD 4.00% 4.58% CT 6.00% 8.01% CT 6.00% 12.01%MA 0.00% 0.00% GA 4.00% 4.49% VT 6.00% 7.27% VT 6.00% 11.27%ME 0.00% 0.00% LA 4.00% 3.50% WI 5.60% 7.13% WI 5.60% 11.13%MT 0.00% 0.00% AK 0.00% 3.44% DE 0.72% 6.88% DE 0.72% 10.88%NH 0.00% 0.00% CA 6.00% 3.43% ME 5.00% 6.37% ME 5.00% 10.37%NJ 0.00% 0.00% VA 3.50% 2.78% ID 5.00% 6.16% ID 5.00% 10.16%VT 0.00% 0.00% NV 6.50% 0.48% MT 0.00% 5.88% MT 0.00% 9.88%WA DC 0.00% 0.00% ID 5.00% 0.26% NV 7.25% 3.97% NV 7.25% 7.97%
Average 1.28% 6.59% 4.83% 7.64% 6.12% 14.17% 6.12% 18.17%
Total Local Tax Rate
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : By Rank ing
-
15
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
# Local Tax Bases # State Tax Bases Total Tax Bases
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoOK 576 576 WA 2 6 OK 577 577VA 95 524 IL 1 6 VA 96 527MO 1 249 RI 1 6 MO 2 252MS 1 132 AZ 1 5 MS 2 136OR 0 83 DE 1 5 OR 0 86KY 1 35 LA 1 5 KY 2 39MD 0 28 MD 1 5 MD 1 33NM 1 18 NM 1 5 NM 2 23CA 1 15 NY 1 5 AZ 14 19AZ 13 14 WA DC 1 5 CA 2 17NV 1 12 WV 1 5 NV 2 16CO 9 9 AR 1 4 WA 5 12WA 3 6 CT 1 4 CO 10 10NY 1 5 FL 1 4 NY 2 10TN 1 5 GA 1 4 LA 65 9LA 64 4 HI 1 4 IL 2 9SC 2 4 IN 1 4 SC 3 8AR 2 3 KY 1 4 TN 2 8PA 2 3 MN 1 4 AR 3 7AK 1 3 MS 1 4 PA 3 7GA 1 3 NV 1 4 GA 2 7IA 1 3 OH 1 4 WI 2 7IL 1 3 PA 1 4 AK 1 7KS 1 3 SC 1 4 WV 1 7TX 1 3 WI 1 4 FL 2 6WI 1 3 AK 0 4 KS 2 6ID 2 2 NH 0 4 RI 1 6AL 1 2 AL 1 3 AL 2 5FL 1 2 KS 1 3 MN 2 5ND 1 2 MI 1 3 ND 2 5NE 1 2 MO 1 3 OH 2 5UT 1 2 NC 1 3 UT 2 5MI 0 2 ND 1 3 DE 1 5SD 0 2 NJ 1 3 IN 1 5WV 0 2 TN 1 3 MI 1 5NC 2 1 UT 1 3 WA DC 1 5MN 1 1 VA 1 3 ID 3 4OH 1 1 VT 1 3 NC 3 4WY 1 1 OR 0 3 IA 2 4IN 0 1 CA 1 2 NE 2 4CT 0 0 ID 1 2 TX 2 4DE 0 0 MA 1 2 CT 1 4HI 0 0 ME 1 2 HI 1 4MA 0 0 NE 1 2 NH 0 4ME 0 0 CO 1 1 NJ 1 3MT 0 0 IA 1 1 SD 1 3NH 0 0 OK 1 1 VT 1 3NJ 0 0 SD 1 1 WY 2 2RI 0 0 TX 1 1 MA 1 2VT 0 0 WY 1 1 ME 1 2WA DC 0 0 MT 0 1 MT 0 1
Average 16 35 1 3 16 38
Total 793 1,769 48 175 841 1,944
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : By Rank ing
-
16
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Total # Returns Total # Taxing Juris.
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoNY 12 5,632 IL 131 1,204WA 549 4,446 TX 1 1,012IL 12 3,305 IA 867 963KY 12 3,253 WA 519 848VA 12 3,174 AR 538 835TX 12 3,107 CA 608 824CA 611 2,440 MO 781 781NE 12 2,261 NY 86 588GA 12 1,945 OK 577 577CO 50 1,420 NE 0 572AR 269 1,259 CO 519 519IA 12 1,148 GA 160 481AL 266 1,146 TN 328 425WV 12 1,142 SD 275 339TN 3,936 1,135 SC 269 326NC 0 1,096 VA 96 316OR 0 1,017 FL 68 312LA 831 1,011 AL 231 307PA 12 994 NM 274 295KS 12 864 UT 275 275MS 24 845 KY 1 272FL 12 830 KS 1 262SC 280 675 PA 108 182AK 7 659 LA 64 177ND 12 589 ND 100 134IN 12 346 WI 55 124ID 77 319 AZ 102 102SD 12 271 MS 2 97WI 12 267 WV 1 93AZ 168 216 AK 98 92NV 12 194 NC 0 92NM 12 120 MI 1 88MI 12 113 IN 1 84WY 12 107 OR 0 84MD 12 89 NV 1 64MN 25 76 WY 24 42UT 12 65 ID 11 32RI 12 43 MD 1 25WA DC 12 43 MN 12 15NH 0 40 CT 1 4DE 12 38 NH 0 4ME 12 25 OH 1 2VT 12 25 DE 1 1CT 12 24 HI 1 1MT 0 20 MA 1 1NJ 12 17 ME 1 1HI 12 16 NJ 1 1OH 12 16 RI 1 1MA 12 14 VT 1 1MO 12 12 WA DC 1 1OK 12 12 MT 0 1
Average 147 940 141 272
Total 7,501 47,921 7,196 13,879
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : By Rank ing
-
17
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — 50 Sta te Survey : By Rank ing
Tangible Prop Eff Rate Eff. Tax Rate on Intang Value
State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. Telco State Gen. Bus. TelcoIL 5.00% 5.00% MD 4.44% 4.44% KS 0.00% 3.94%MN 4.90% 4.90% RI 4.22% 4.22% MT 0.00% 3.34%NY 2.99% 4.73% AZ 4.20% 4.20% OK 0.00% 2.67%AZ 4.20% 4.20% KS 2.98% 3.94% MI 0.00% 2.54%KS 2.98% 3.94% MO 3.77% 3.77% CO 1.46% 2.23%MO 3.77% 3.77% WA DC 3.40% 3.40% SD 0.00% 2.15%NJ 3.62% 3.62% MT 1.67% 3.34% NE 0.00% 1.90%RI 3.42% 3.42% CT 3.28% 3.28% TN 0.00% 1.67%IA 3.40% 3.40% SC 3.14% 3.14% AL 0.00% 1.50%MT 1.67% 3.34% MA 3.13% 3.13% KY 0.00% 1.40%CT 3.28% 3.28% MS 2.93% 2.93% OR 0.00% 1.30%SC 3.14% 3.14% WI 2.67% 2.86% AR 0.00% 1.22%MA 3.13% 3.13% NJ 0.00% 2.76% UT 0.00% 1.20%PA 2.50% 3.09% ME 2.45% 2.70% WY 0.00% 0.79%OH 2.98% 2.98% TX 2.70% 2.70% FL 0.15% 0.10%MS 2.93% 2.93% OK 1.39% 2.67% AK 0.00% 0.00%WI 2.67% 2.86% MI 3.18% 2.54% AZ 0.00% 0.00%TX 2.70% 2.70% VT 2.47% 2.37% CA 0.00% 0.00%OK 1.29% 2.67% IN 2.35% 2.35% CT 0.00% 0.00%MI 3.18% 2.54% CO 1.46% 2.23% DE 0.00% 0.00%VT 2.47% 2.47% FL 2.34% 2.15% GA 0.00% 0.00%ME 2.45% 2.45% SD 0.00% 2.15% HI 0.00% 0.00%IN 2.35% 2.35% OH 2.13% 2.13% IA 0.00% 0.00%CO 1.46% 2.23% LA 2.05% 2.05% ID 0.00% 0.00%FL 2.34% 2.15% NE 1.91% 1.90% IL 0.00% 0.00%SD 2.15% 2.15% ID 1.70% 1.70% IN 0.00% 0.00%LA 2.05% 2.05% TN 1.25% 1.67% LA 0.00% 0.00%NH 2.01% 2.01% AL 1.00% 1.50% MA 0.00% 0.00%NE 1.91% 1.90% GA 1.42% 1.42% MD 0.00% 0.00%WA DC 1.85% 1.85% AK 1.41% 1.41% ME 0.00% 0.00%MD 1.84% 1.84% KY 1.40% 1.40% MN 0.00% 0.00%ID 1.70% 1.70% VA 3.70% 1.33% MO 0.00% 0.00%TN 1.25% 1.67% OR 1.30% 1.30% MS 0.00% 0.00%AL 1.00% 1.50% WA 1.30% 1.30% NC 0.00% 0.00%GA 1.42% 1.42% AR 1.22% 1.22% ND 0.00% 0.00%AK 1.41% 1.41% UT 1.20% 1.20% NH 0.00% 0.00%KY 1.40% 1.40% NM 1.17% 1.17% NJ 0.00% 0.00%VA 1.33% 1.33% NV 1.11% 1.11% NM 0.00% 0.00%OR 1.30% 1.30% CA 1.10% 1.10% NV 0.00% 0.00%WA 1.30% 1.30% NC 1.01% 1.01% NY 0.00% 0.00%AR 1.22% 1.22% WY 0.65% 0.79% OH 0.00% 0.00%UT 1.20% 1.20% WV 0.48% 0.48% PA 0.00% 0.00%NM 1.17% 1.17% DE 0.00% 0.00% RI 0.00% 0.00%NV 1.11% 1.11% HI 0.00% 0.00% SC 0.00% 0.00%CA 1.10% 1.10% IA 0.00% 0.00% TX 0.00% 0.00%DE 1.08% 1.08% IL 0.00% 0.00% VA 0.00% 0.00%NC 1.01% 1.01% MN 0.00% 0.00% VT 0.00% 0.00%WY 0.65% 0.79% ND 0.00% 0.00% WA 0.00% 0.00%WV 0.48% 0.48% NH 0.00% 0.00% WA DC 0.00% 0.00%ND 2.25% 0.00% NY 0.00% 0.00% WI 0.00% 0.00%HI 1.91% 0.00% PA 0.00% 0.00% WV 0.00% 0.00%
Average 2.19% 2.26% 1.70% 1.85% 0.03% 0.55%
COST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
Real Prop Eff Rate
-
18
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Telecommunication Specifi c Legislative Activity Since 2001
The following list identifies significant state and local legislation enacted since the 2001 State Study. These changes are reflected in the state detail sheets.
2002 Illinois – enacted the Simplified Municipal Telecommunications Act replacing three municipal taxes with a centrally administered “simplified municipal telecommunications tax” for all jurisdictions other than the City of Chicago.
2003 Ohio – enacted legislation repealing the gross receipts tax imposed upon local exchange carriers and phasing down the disparate property tax as-sessment ratio.
Utah – enacted legislation that standardized the municipal license tax base, provided for central collection of the locally collected 911 taxes and the city business license taxes and provided for a “cost-based” access to the right of way policy.
South Dakota – enacted legislation imposing a 4% gross receipts tax on providers of wireless telecommunications services.
Pennsylvania – enacted legislation expanding the 5% gross receipts tax base to interstate receipts and also extending the tax to providers of wire-less telecommunications services.
Texas – extended the TIF, which was set to expire in 2003. Oregon – several cities begin imposing local taxes at rates as high as 9%
on telecommunications services provided within the city.
2004 Virginia – enacted legislation eliminating the sales tax exemption applicable to telecommunications equipment.
Virginia – enacted telecommunications reform legislation requiring a study and the drafting of statutory changes to eliminate local taxes and to create one statewide tax.
California – increased city 911 fees. Maine – enacted legislation converting its sales tax as applied to telecom-
munications to a gross receipts type tax. Maryland – City of Baltimore - passed an ordinance changing the 12%
tax on local exchange service to a $3.50 per line charge and extended the tax to each cell phone sourced within the city limits.
Rhode Island – enacted legislation imposing a second 911 fee of $.26 per wireless phone to support the funding needed to deploy GPS location equipment.
South Carolina – the cap on the business license tax for telecommunication service was increased from .75% to 1% for license year 2004 and beyond.
New Jersey – enacted legislation imposing a 911 tax of 90 cents per line on both landline and wireless services.
New York – enacted legislation authorizing counties to impose an additional E911 tax on wireless services.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — Leg is la t i ve Act i v i t y S ince 2001
-
19
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Methodology and Assumptions
Methodology
The data used to compile this 2004 State Study is true and accurate to the best knowledge of the COST Telecommunications Tax Task Force members who participated in its preparation. COST cannot and does not attest that the data is absolutely precise. However, COST believes that the data reasonably reflects the existing state and local tax burden imposed on the telecommunications industry.
The participants in the Study identified and quantified each element of the taxing process for sales of tangible personal products (general business) and certain taxable services (telecommunications). The analysis also includes identification of vendors’ col-lection allowances and sales tax equipment exemptions. The participants also identified the applicable property tax rates applied to property, including any exemptions that would impact the effective tax rate. The Study does not include income taxes. For each state, the study contains a worksheet that shows:
Transaction Taxes and Fees:
A list of taxes that apply Whether the tax applies to telecommunications and/or general businessWhether the tax is imposed on the business or customerApplicable tax rates (or ranges of rates) or amounts imposedAverage Effective Rate: Averages the tax rate in the largest city and the capital city. If the tax only applies in one jurisdiction, the average effective tax rate is half of the rate that applies in the one jurisdiction.Statutory Citation for each taxApplicable tax base for each tax (in very general terms)Number of taxing jurisdictions applying each taxNumber of returns required for each tax each yearWhether local tax bases are consistent for a tax (from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction)Whether local tax exemptions from the taxes are consistentDollar amount of vendor’s comp on $1 million of tax (if applicable)
Property Taxes
A list of taxes that apply Telecommunications Adjusted Rate (Averages the tax rate in the largest city and the capital city) less rate reduction due to creditGeneral Business Effective RateWhether the business is centrally or locally assessedThe methodologies used to determine the fair market values of propertyThe effective tax rates applied to real, tangible personal and intangible property
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — Methodo logy and Assumpt ions
-
20
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Equipment Exemptions (for both Property and Sales Taxes)
Description of property (Towers, Poles, etc.)Whether the property is classified as real or personalWhether property is exempt or is credit availableWhether exemption is limited to regulated or public utility customersWhether manufacturers have an exemption for equipment purchases
Summary Sheets
The results of the individual state studies were input into worksheets that group the data by state for both general business and telecommunications businesses. The state-by-state summary data highlights:
The number of state and local taxes (i.e., counts the different types of taxes) The state and local effective tax rates The total effective tax rate including federal taxesThe number of state and local tax bases The number of returns the businesses must file each year The number of different taxing jurisdictionsThe effective property tax rates for real, tangible personal and intangible property (taking into account assessment ratios and rates)
The state by state summary data is sorted and incorporated into several graphs. Two sets of graphs are included. The first set includes comparative data for the top ten highest states (e.g., the ten states with the highest applicable parameter for telecom-munications). The second set includes comparative data for the top ten most populous states (based on 2000 population data).
The summary data is also included in comparison charts that show the results of each parameter by state. The side-by-side comparisons highlight a few parameters where general business has a worse result than telecommunications. For example, general business may pay a tax or fee that telecommunications does not (due to another tax or fee applying in lieu of the tax or fee). In a couple of instances, the administrative burden on general business may be greater for a particular tax. New for the 2004 State Study are charts comparing key findings on tax rates and number of returns from this study with findings from the 2001 State Study.
Assumptions
For each state, the 2004 State Study assumes that the telecommunications business is a statewide service provider and the general business has a store in each taxing jurisdiction. Thus, the study attempts to identify each transaction tax or fee and the property tax applicable in each local jurisdiction in the state (as well as the state level taxes and fees and exemptions).
Given the complexity of the taxation of telecommunications and in order to compare the data, various assumptions were made. Because state and local taxing jurisdictions frequently do not tax all types of telecommunications uniformly, if any segment of the telecommunications industry is taxed, the average of the tax in the largest city and capital city on such service is included in the summary. Note that if the capital is also the state’s largest city, the capital city and second-largest city are used for this purpose.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — Methodo logy and Assumpt ions
-
21
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
For example, if only local telecommunications service is taxed (not long distance or wireless service), the average effective tax on local service is included in the data.
Similarly, to the extent local jurisdictional tax rates vary, the average effective rates are included. Because there are many taxes and fees that are applied on an access line basis (e.g., many 911 fees), such flat amounts were converted to percentages based on average monthly residential bills (wireline data was captured as of May 2004 and wireless data as of December 2003). The average monthly residential bills used for this study are: A) Wireline Only: $20.23; B) Wireless Only: $49.91; C) Both Services: $35.07.
Changes from Prior State Studies
Listed below are several changes between the methodologies used in compiling the 2004 State Study and the earlier versions of this study. These changes should be considered when comparing the two studies:
A) Effective Tax Rate (for taxes designated as local):
1999 State Study: Highest Tax Rate imposed on such a service among all local jurisdictions is generally used for comparison purposes.
2000, 2001 & 2004 State Studies: Used an average of the largest (most populous) city and the capital city for comparison purposes.
B) Flat Taxes and Fees:
1999 State Study: Flat amounts were converted to percentages based on aver-age monthly residential bills for 1998. (Wireline: $17.41, Wireless: $39.43, Both Services: $28.42)
2000 State Study: Flat amounts were converted to percentages based on aver-age monthly residential bills for 1999. (Wireline: $17.42, Wireless: $41.24, Both Services: $29.33)
2001 State Study: Flat amounts were converted to percentages based on average monthly residential bills for 1998. (Wireline: $17.42, Wireless: $45.27, Both Services: $31.35)
2004 State Study: Flat amounts were converted to percentages based on average monthly residential bills for 2003. (Wireline: $20.23, Wireless: $49.91, Both Services: $35.07)
Because of this change in methodology, flat tax amounts, which remained the same, may result in different effective tax rates.
C) Adjusted Property Tax Effective Rate:
1999 State Study: Effective Tax Rate was not adjusted for a reduction due to incentive type credits.
2000, 2001 & 2004 State Studies: Effective Tax Rate is adjusted for a reduction due to incentive type credits (listed under column “Adjusted Effective Rate”).
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I — Methodo logy and Assumpt ions
-
22
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY
PART I I
Analysis of IndividualStates
-
23
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Sta
te:
Ala
bam
a
Pre
par
ed b
y (n
ame
and
co
mp
any)
:T
om
Jan
kow
ski /
Jo
n S
toke
s (C
ing
ular
Wir
eles
s) a
nd E
llio
tt T
hom
pso
n (B
ellS
out
h)C
itie
s us
ed t
o C
alcu
late
Lo
cal A
vera
ge
Eff
ecti
ve R
ate:
Cap
ital
Cit
y:M
ont
go
mer
yL
arg
est
Cit
y:B
irm
ing
ham
TR
AN
SA
CT
ION
TA
XE
S &
FE
ES
AB
CD
EF
GH
IJ
KL
MN
OP
QR
Fee
/Tax
Bas
ed o
n R
even
ueR
ate
Ave
rag
e E
ffec
tive
R
ate
Sta
tuto
ry
Cit
atio
n
Tax
ap
ply
to
T
elep
hone
B
usin
ess?
(e
nter
Y o
r N
)
Tax
ap
ply
to
G
ener
al
Bus
ines
s?
(ent
er Y
or
N)
Tax
im
po
sed
on
Bus
ines
s O
r C
usto
mer
?
(ent
er B
or
C)
Tax
ap
ply
to
(A
) in
ter-
, (B
) in
tra,
and
/or
(C)
Lo
cal
serv
ice)
If B
usin
ess
tax,
do
es
cod
e P
rohi
bit
(P
), R
equi
re
(R),
Allo
w (
A),
o
r is
it S
ilent
(S
) re
: P
ass
Thr
u?
If lo
cal t
ax,
is it
file
d
loca
lly?
(ent
er Y
or
N)
# o
f Ju
ris.
th
at a
pp
ly (
if
it is
a s
tate
ta
x in
put
1)
# o
f re
turn
s p
er y
ear
per
ju
risd
icti
on
To
tal #
of
annu
al
retu
rns
(aut
om
atic
)
If lo
cal t
ax,
do
tax
rat
es
vary
?
(e
nter
Y o
r N
)
If lo
cal t
ax,
do
tax
bas
es
vary
by
juri
sdic
tio
n?
(ent
er Y
or
N)
If lo
cal t
ax,
do
tax
ex
emp
tio
ns
vary
by
juri
sdic
tio
n?
(ent
er Y
or
N)
$ A
mo
unt
of
Ven
do
r's
com
p o
n $1
M
of
fees
/tax
/mo
Co
mm
ents
/fo
otn
ote
sU
tilit
y ta
x6.
00%
6.00
% 4
0-21
-86
YN
BA
,B,C
RN
/A1
1212
N/A
N/A
N/A
9,00
0$
911
tax
5% M
ax5.
00%
11-
98-7
YN
CC
AY
7412
888
YN
NV
arie
s
To
tal n
umb
er o
f ju
risd
icti
ons
ob
tain
ed
fro
m V
erte
x.W
irel
ess
911
$0.7
0/m
ont
h1.
40%
11-9
8-7
YN
CN
/AA
N/A
112
12N
/AN
/AN
/A10
,000
$P
UC
Fee
-RC
C0.
185%
0.18
5%37
-2-4
1(b
)Y
NB
B,C
SN
/A1
44
N/A
N/A
N/A
N
Lic
ense
Fee
/tax
Max
$15
,000
-40
-21-
50Y
YB
N/A
SY
230
123
0Y
NN
ND
oes
no
t in
clud
e fi
xed
fee
lic
ense
s at
the
loca
l lev
el.
Sta
te s
ales
tax
-eq
uip
men
t4.
00%
4.00
%40
-23-
26N
YC
N/A
RN
/A1
1212
N/A
N/A
N/A
$90
0 M
axp
er r
etur
n
Lo
cal S
ales
Tax
-E
qui
pm
ent
0%-4
%4.
00%
40-
23-2
6N
YC
N/A
RN
(see
no
te)
212
24Y
NN
10,6
30$
In m
ost
inst
ance
s, t
axre
turn
is f
iled
wit
h th
e A
DO
R o
r A
lata
x.
Dua
l Par
ty R
elay
0.15
per
ac
cess
line
0.74
%37
-1-8
0.2
YN
CN
/AR
N/A
112
12N
/AN
/AN
/AN
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PR
OP
ER
TY
TA
XE
S
ST
UV
WX
YZ
AA
Pro
per
ty
Tel
co E
ffec
tive
R
ate
Les
s ra
te
red
ucti
on
due
to
cre
dit
Ad
just
ed
Eff
ecti
ve R
ate
Tel
co P
rop
. T
ax L
oca
lly
vs. C
entr
. A
dm
in'd
(ent
er L
or
C)
Tel
co F
MV
b
ased
on
Co
st (
C)
Cap
'd In
c (I)
o
r M
kt (
M)
(ent
er C
, I o
r M
)
Gen
eral
B
usin
ess
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e
Gen
. Bus
. L
oca
lly v
s.
Cen
tr.
Ad
min
'd
(e
nter
L o
r C
)
Gen
eral
FM
V
bas
ed o
n C
ost
(C
) C
ap'd
Inc
(I)
or
Mkt
(M
)
(ent
er C
, I o
r M
)R
eal P
rop
erty
1.50
0%0.
00%
1.50
%C
Mix
ture
1.00
%L
C,I,
MT
ang
. Per
s. P
rop
.1.
500%
0.00
%1.
50%
CM
ixtu
re1.
00%
LC
Inta
ng. P
ers.
Pro
p.
1.50
0%0.
000%
1.50
%N
/AN
/AN
/AN
/AN
/A
EQ
UIP
ME
NT
EX
EM
PT
ION
S
CC
DD
EE
GG
HH
II
Pro
per
ty
Rea
l vs.
P
erso
nal
(e
nter
R o
r P
)
Exe
mp
tio
n o
r C
red
it
Ava
ilab
le?
(e
nter
Y o
r N
)
Exe
mp
tio
n lim
ited
to
re
gul
ated
or
pub
lic u
tilit
y co
s? (
ente
r Y
or
N)
Rea
l v.
Per
sona
l P
rop
erty
?
(R o
r P
)
Exe
mp
tio
n o
r C
red
it
Ava
ilab
le?
(Y
or
N)
Exe
mp
tio
n lim
ited
to
re
gul
ated
or
pub
lic u
tilit
y co
s? (
Y o
r N
)T
ow
ers
PN
NR
NN
Po
les/
wir
es/c
ond
uits
PN
NR
See
No
teN
CO
EP
NN
PS
ee N
ote
NM
fg e
qui
pm
ent
PN
NP
See
No
teN
Cel
l sit
e/sw
itch
esP
NN
PS
ee N
ote
NB
road
ban
d e
qm
t.P
NN
PS
ee N
ote
N
Ple
ase
list
any
gen
eral
co
mm
ents
bel
ow
tha
t sh
oul
d b
e no
ted
reg
ard
ing
thi
s st
ate.
Inc
lud
e a
bri
ef d
escr
ipti
on
of
any
law
cha
nges
tak
ing
eff
ect
afte
r Ju
ly 1
, 200
4 th
at w
oul
d c
hang
e th
e in
form
atio
n ab
ove
.
1. W
irel
ess
- A
sses
smen
ts f
or
wir
eles
s co
mp
anie
s ar
e d
one
loca
lly b
ased
on
ori
gin
al c
ost
less
sch
edul
ed d
epre
ciat
ion.
Ass
essm
ent
rati
o f
or
wir
eles
s is
20%
.2.
Wir
elin
e -
Cen
tral
ly a
sses
sed
by
the
Sta
te u
sing
a u
nit
app
roac
h. A
sses
smen
t ra
tio
is 3
0%.
BB
Co
mm
ents
/fo
otn
ote
s:S
ee F
oo
tno
te 1
.S
ee F
oo
tno
te 1
.
FF
JJ
Pro
per
ty T
axS
ales
Tax
If Y
es, P
leas
e D
escr
ibe
If Y
es, P
leas
e D
escr
ibe
Red
uced
tax
rat
e ap
plie
s.R
educ
ed t
ax r
ate
app
lies.
Red
uced
tax
rat
e ap
plie
s.
Red
uced
tax
rat
e ap
plie
s.R
educ
ed t
ax r
ate
app
lies.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I I — Ana lys is o f Ind iv idua l S ta tes : A labama
-
24
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I I — Ana lys is o f Ind iv idua l S ta tes : A labama
CO
ST
TE
LE
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
NS
TA
X S
TU
DY
- S
tate
Su
mm
ary
Sh
eet
Sta
te
Tot
al #
of
Loc
al
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al #
of
Sta
te
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al
Loc
al T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
Tot
al
Sta
te T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
# of
Loc
al
Tax
Bas
es
that
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
# of
Sta
te T
ax
Bas
es t
hat
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
Tot
al #
of
Ret
urns
R
emit
ted
Per
Yea
r
Tot
al #
of
Tax
ing
Juri
sdic
tion
s
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Rea
l P
rope
rty
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Tan
gibl
e
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Inta
ngib
le
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Exe
mpt
ions
or
Ince
ntiv
es?
(IN
PU
T 1
IF
YE
S, 0
IF N
O)
Sal
es T
ax
Exe
mpt
ions
or
Ince
ntiv
es?
IN
PU
T 1
IF Y
ES
, 0
IF N
O
AL
AB
AM
A2
14.
00%
4.00
%1
126
623
11.
00%
1.00
%N
/A-
1
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s
Tot
al #
of
Loc
al
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al #
of
Sta
te
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al
Loc
al T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
Tot
al
Sta
te T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
# of
Loc
alT
ax
Bas
es t
hat
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
# of
Sta
te
Tax
Bas
es
that
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
Tot
al #
of
Ret
urns
R
emit
ted
Per
Yea
r
Tot
al #
of
Tax
ing
Juri
sdic
tion
s
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Rea
l P
rope
rty
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Tan
gibl
e
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Inta
ngib
le
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Exe
mpt
ions
or
Ince
ntiv
es?
IN
PU
T 1
IF Y
ES
, 0
IF N
O
Sal
es T
ax
Exe
mpt
ions
or
Ince
ntiv
es?
IN
PU
T 1
IF Y
ES
, 0
IF N
O
23
5.00
%6.
93%
23
1,14
630
71.
50%
1.50
%1.
50%
-
1
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ions
-
25
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
Sta
te:
Ala
ska
Pre
par
ed b
y (n
ame
and
co
mp
any)
:R
ob
ert
Co
le (
Sp
rin
t) a
nd
Jo
hn
McN
amar
a (A
T&
T)
Cit
ies
use
d t
o C
alcu
late
Lo
cal A
vera
ge
Eff
ecti
ve R
ate:
Cap
ital
Cit
y:Ju
nea
uL
arg
est
Cit
y:A
nch
ora
ge
TR
AN
SA
CT
ION
TA
XE
S &
FE
ES
AB
CD
EF
GH
IJ
KL
MN
OP
QR
Fee
/Tax
Bas
ed o
n
Rev
enu
eR
ate
Ave
rag
e E
ffec
tive
Rat
eS
tatu
tory
C
itat
ion
Tax
ap
ply
to
T
elep
ho
ne
Bu
sin
ess?
(e
nte
r Y
or
N)
Tax
ap
ply
to
G
ener
al
Bu
sin
ess?
(e
nte
r Y
or
N)
Tax
imp
ose
d o
n
Bu
sin
ess
Or
Cu
sto
mer
?
(en
ter
B o
r C
)
Tax
ap
ply
to
(A
) in
ter-
, (B
) in
tra,
an
d/o
r (C
) L
oca
l se
rvic
e)
If B
usi
nes
s ta
x, d
oes
co
de
Pro
hib
it
(P),
Req
uir
e (R
), A
llow
(A
),
or
is it
Sile
nt
(S)
re:
Pas
s T
hru
?
If lo
cal t
ax,
is it
file
d
loca
lly?
(en
ter
Y o
r N
)
# o
f Ju
ris.
th
at a
pp
ly (
if it
is a
sta
te
tax
inp
ut
1)
# o
f re
turn
s p
er y
ear
per
ju
risd
ictio
n
To
tal #
of
ann
ual
re
turn
s (a
uto
mat
ic)
If lo
cal t
ax,
do
tax
rat
es
vary
?
(en
ter
Y o
r N
)
If lo
cal t
ax,
do
tax
bas
es
vary
by
juri
sdic
tio
n?
(e
nte
r Y
or
N)
If lo
cal t
ax,
do
tax
ex
emp
tio
ns
vary
by
juri
sdic
tio
n?
(e
nte
r Y
or
N)
$ A
mo
un
t o
f V
end
or'
s co
mp
on
$1M
o
f fe
es/t
ax/m
oC
om
men
ts/f
oo
tno
tes
911
tax
$.50
-$.7
51.
78%
A.S
. 29.
35.1
31Y
NC
per
acc
ess
line
Y7
1284
YN
N10
,000
$
See
Fo
otn
ote
s 1,
2 a
nd
4.
Sta
te U
SF
(A
K U
niv
ersa
l S
ervi
ce A
dm
in. C
o.)
0.96
0%0.
960%
A.S
. 42.
05.8
40Y
NB
B,C
R1
1212
Un
iver
sal A
cces
s (T
elec
om
Rel
ay S
ervi
ce)
$.27
or
$.54
1.33
% o
r 2.
67%
A.S
. 42
.05.
296(
a)Y
NC
per
acc
ess
line
112
12
$.27
fo
r re
s. &
1-l
ine
bu
s.;
$.54
fo
r m
ulti
-lin
e b
us.
See
F
oo
tno
te 3
.P
ub
. Uti
lity
Reg
. Co
st
Ch
arg
e -
Lo
cal E
xch
ang
e1.
731%
1.29
0%A
.S. 4
2.05
.254
YN
BC
A1
44
Pu
b. U
tility
Reg
ula
tory
C
ost
Ch
arg
e -
IXC
1.29
7%1.
297%
A.S
. 42.
05.2
55Y
NB
BA
14
4
Lo
cal U
tilit
y T
axes
8%0.
00%
A.S
. 29.
35.0
10Y
NC
C (
intr
acit
y)Y
14
4C
ity
of
An
der
son
is o
nly
cit
y w
ith
a lo
cal u
tilit
y ta
x
Lo
cal S
ales
Tax
es1%
- 7
%2.
50%
A.S
. 29.
45.6
50-
29.4
5.71
0Y
YC
A,B
,CY
806.
753
9Y
YY
max
. $50
(J
un
eau
)
An
cho
rag
e h
as n
o s
ales
tax
; Ju
nea
u s
ales
tax
= 5
%
(rem
itte
d m
on
thly
). S
ee
Fo
otn
ote
s 5,
6 a
nd
7.
Foo
tnot
es:
1.
For
mu
nic
ipal
ities
>10
0,00
0 p
opu
latio
n, s
urc
har
ge
may
not
exc
eed
$.5
0; if
pop
ula
tion
<10
0,00
0, s
urc
har
ge
may
not
exc
eed
$.7
5 (A
.S. 2
9.35
.131
(a))
2. S
urc
har
ge
app
lies
to a
max
imu
m o
f 10
0 lin
es p
er c
ust
omer
.
3. S
urc
har
ge
rem
itted
dir
ectly
to
the
pro
vid
er o
f T
RS
ser
vice
, GC
I Com
mu
nic
atio
ns
Cor
p.
4. E
ffec
tive
10/0
1, w
irel
ess
serv
ice
will
als
o b
ecom
e su
bje
ct t
o th
e 91
1 ta
x. S
ee n
ote
reg
ard
ing
th
is la
w c
han
ge
bel
ow.
5. S
ome
juri
sdic
tion
s re
qu
ire
qu
arte
rly
rem
ittan
ce;
som
e m
onth
ly.
Th
e n
um
ber
giv
en is
an
ave
rag
e b
ased
up
on a
rep
rese
nat
ive
sam
ple
.
6. 9
8 ju
risd
ictio
ns
char
ge
a g
ener
al s
ales
tax
. O
f th
ese,
18
do
not
ap
ply
to
telc
o.
7. A
ccor
din
g t
o Ju
nea
u S
ales
Tax
Ad
min
ista
trat
or, a
ll te
lep
hon
e ca
lls t
hat
are
bill
ed t
o an
ad
dre
ss w
ithin
th
e ci
ty a
nd
bor
oug
h o
f Ju
nea
u w
ould
be
sub
ject
to
the
sale
s ta
x.
PR
OP
ER
TY
TA
XE
S
ST
UV
WX
YZ
AA
Pro
per
ty
Tel
co
Eff
ecti
ve R
ate
Les
s ra
te
red
uct
ion
d
ue
to c
red
itA
dju
sted
E
ffec
tive
Rat
e
Tel
co P
rop
. T
ax L
oca
lly
vs. C
entr
. A
dm
in'd
(en
ter
L o
r C
)
Tel
co F
MV
b
ased
on
C
ost
(C
) C
ap'd
Inc
(I)
or
Mkt
(M
) (e
nte
r C
, I o
r M
)
Gen
eral
B
usi
nes
s E
ffec
tive
R
ate
Gen
. Bu
s.
Lo
cally
vs.
C
entr
. A
dm
in'd
(en
ter
L o
r C
)
Gen
eral
FM
V
bas
ed o
n
Co
st (
C)
Cap
'd In
c (I)
o
r M
kt (
M)
(e
nte
r C
, I o
r M
)R
eal P
rop
erty
1.41
%0.
00%
1.41
%L
M1.
35%
LM
Tan
g. P
ers.
Pro
p.
1.41
%0.
00%
1.41
%L
M1.
35%
LM
Inta
ng
. Per
s. P
rop
.0.
00%
0.00
%0.
00%
EQ
UIP
ME
NT
EX
EM
PT
ION
S
CC
DD
EE
GG
HH
II
Pro
per
ty
Rea
l vs.
P
erso
nal
(e
nte
r R
or
P)
Exe
mp
tio
n
or
Cre
dit
A
vaila
ble
?
(en
ter
Y o
r N
)
Exe
mp
tio
n
limit
ed t
o
reg
ula
ted
or
pu
blic
util
ity
cos?
(en
ter
Y
or
N)
Rea
l v.
Per
son
al
Pro
per
ty?
(R
or
P)
Exe
mp
tio
n
or
Cre
dit
A
vaila
ble
?
(Y o
r N
)
Exe
mp
tio
n
limit
ed t
o
reg
ula
ted
or
pu
blic
util
ity
cos?
(Y
or
N)
To
wer
s(E
1)N
N/A
N (
Jun
eau
)N
/AP
ole
s/w
ires
/co
nd
uit
s(E
1)N
N/A
N (
Jun
eau
)N
/AC
OE
(E1)
NN
/AN
(Ju
nea
u)
N/A
Mfg
eq
uip
men
t(E
1)Y
(Ju
nea
u)
NN
(Ju
nea
u)
N/A
Cel
l sit
e/sw
itch
es(E
1)N
N/A
N (
Jun
eau
)N
/AB
road
ban
d e
qm
t.(E
1)N
N/A
N (
Jun
eau
)N
/A
Ple
ase
list
any
gen
eral
co
mm
ents
bel
ow
th
at s
ho
uld
be
no
ted
reg
ard
ing
th
is s
tate
. In
clu
de
a b
rief
des
crip
tio
n o
f an
y la
w c
han
ges
tak
ing
eff
ect
afte
r Ju
ly 1
, 200
4 th
at w
ou
ld c
han
ge
the
info
rmat
ion
ab
ove
.
(E1)
If a
n it
em c
an b
e ta
ken
ou
t of
a s
tru
ctu
re w
ithou
t to
ols,
not
bu
ilt in
, it
will
nor
mal
ly b
e p
erso
nal
. S
ince
rea
l an
d p
erso
nal
pro
per
ty a
re t
axed
at
the
sam
e ra
te, t
he
dis
tinct
ion
is n
ot im
por
tan
t.
BB
Jun
eau
= 1
.164
%;
An
cho
rag
e =
1.1
61%
(av
erag
e o
f 43
tax
dis
tric
ts)
Co
mm
ents
/fo
otn
ote
s:
If Y
es, P
leas
e D
escr
ibe
An
cho
rag
e h
as n
o g
ener
al s
ales
tax
.
Jun
eau
: N
ew e
qu
ipm
ent e
xem
pt
100%
yea
r 1,
80%
yea
r 2
dec
linin
g
to 2
0% y
ear
5. 1
00%
tax
able
aft
er t
hat
.A
nch
ora
ge
has
no
gen
eral
sal
es t
ax.
An
cho
rag
e h
as n
o g
ener
al s
ales
tax
.A
nch
ora
ge
has
no
gen
eral
sal
es t
ax.
FF
* A
lask
a H
B 1
86 (
sig
ned
into
law
7/0
1) a
men
ds
A.S
. 29.
35.1
31(a
) to
exp
and
th
e 91
1 ta
x to
wir
eles
s te
lep
ho
ne
serv
ice.
Beg
inn
ing
10/
1/01
, mu
nic
ipal
itie
s w
ith p
op
ula
tio
ns
ove
r 10
0,00
0 m
ay im
po
se a
fee
of
$.50
per
eac
h w
irel
ess
ph
on
e, a
nd
m
un
icip
alit
ies
smal
ler
than
100
,000
may
imp
ose
a f
ee o
f u
p t
o $
.75
per
ph
on
e.
An
cho
rag
e h
as n
o g
ener
al s
ales
tax
.
JJ
Pro
per
ty T
axS
ales
Tax
If Y
es, P
leas
e D
escr
ibe
An
cho
rag
e h
as n
o g
ener
al s
ales
tax.
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I I — Ana lys is o f Ind iv idua l S ta tes : A laska
-
26
© 2 0 0 5 , C O U N C I L O N S TAT E TA X AT I O N C C H I N C O R P O R AT E D
2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX STUDY — PART I I — Ana lys is o f Ind iv idua l S ta tes : A laska
CO
ST
TE
LE
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
NS
TA
X S
TU
DY
- S
tate
Su
mm
ary
Sh
eet
Sta
te
Tot
al #
of
Loc
al
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al #
of
Sta
te
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al
Loc
al T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
Tot
al
Sta
te T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
# of
Loc
al
Tax
Bas
es
that
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
# of
Sta
te T
ax
Bas
es t
hat
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
Tot
al #
of
Ret
urns
R
emit
ted
Per
Yea
r
Tot
al #
of
Tax
ing
Juri
sdic
tion
s
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Rea
l P
rope
rty
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Tan
gibl
e
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Inta
ngib
le
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Exe
mpt
ions
or
Ince
ntiv
es?
(IN
PU
T 1
IF
YE
S, 0
IF N
O)
Sal
es T
ax
Exe
mpt
ions
or
Ince
ntiv
es?
IN
PU
T 1
IF Y
ES
, 0
IF N
O
AL
AS
KA
10
2.50
%0.
00%
10
798
1.41
%1.
41%
0.00
%1
-
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s
Tot
al #
of
Loc
al
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al #
of
Sta
te
Tax
es
App
lied
to
Sal
es
Tot
al
Loc
al T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
Tot
al
Sta
te T
ax
Rat
e A
ppli
ed t
o S
ales
# of
Loc
alT
ax
Bas
es t
hat
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
# of
Sta
te
Tax
Bas
es
that
Mus
t B
e M
aint
aine
d
Tot
al #
of
Ret
urns
R
emit
ted
Per
Yea
r
Tot
al #
of
Tax
ing
Juri
sdic
tion
s
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Rea
l P
rope
rty
Pro
pert
y T
ax
Eff
ecti
ve
Rat
e -
Tan
gibl
e
Pro
pert
y
Pro
pert
y T
ax
E