Amazon. com Help: Kentucky Telecommunications and Utility Taxes

The Future of Telecommunications Regulation

Eli M. Noam

Professor of Finance and Economics

Director, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information

Graduate School of Business, Columbia University

Presented at the Conference on Telecommunications

Pennsylvania State University

In discussing the future of telecommunications regulations one needs to ask first, there is a future? Or is it just the same present and past repeating themselves, like in the movies, just like the Groundhog Day, where Bill Murray was condemned to live the same day again and again? It’s been over three years now since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And yet, it seems like the old days, everywhere in new variants one looks, one meets dear old friends. There’s Interconnection, for example, and over there, good old RBOC IXC, looking as depressed as ever. And here is good old state jurisdiction. Among such truly companions, does one dare to speak of the future as anything but a continuation of the past?

Well, yes. What better time to speak of the future than when the Millennium is near, and when one might want to soon some truly big-time New Year’s resolutions about telecom policy. Because if we have no idea where we are going, we actually might end up getting there.

For some, the official documents are backward looks. The 96 Act has only One single Mention of the Internet that has survived Supreme Court scrutiny. And it is administered partly by a regulatory agency, the FCC, that thinks that a A Portal@ is a politically friendly new office building. So lets look ahead, instead, to the telecommunications of ten years ahead, and to the regulatory environment of 2020.

We can address the future in cosmic terms, with nano technology, brain modems, and Supreme Pres > Or we can be a bit more modest, and assume simply that the technology in 20 years isn’t radically different, just cheaper, smaller, faster, and spread through society. Basically every communications device we have today existed 20 years ago, just bigger, clearer, slower and without the network externalities of a large user base. Satellites, fiber, cable, Micro computers, the Internet (Al Gore was just inventional)

But these trends, of cheaper, faster, smaller and w > The basic building blocks of technology are not many. First, there are semiconductor transistor chips such as microprocessors, memory, and signal processors. Next year, the world will produce about 100 trillion transistors, thousands of them crammed on silicon wafers. If Moore’s so-called law keeps valid, by the year 2020 these chips will have 1,000 times more power than today, or be 1000 times cheaper, or a combination of the two.

As processing becomes cheap, it will be anywhere. Computers have started to be given away for free, like the cellphones that use to cost thousands of dollars. And people will be the minor part of information generators. Already, more than half of traffic is data rather than voice, which means that it involves fast machines rather than slow people. As an information processor, humans are hopeless. If I get faster than 200 words per minute, I’ll lose you and confuse you myself. Education and coffee improve things only so much. But machines have much higher limits. And it is here that the microprocessor revolution has its major communication impact. These data machines will be everywhere. Suitcases will complain to airlines. Electronic books will download from publishers. Front doors will check in with police departments. Pacemakers will talk to hospitals. Television sets will connect to video servers.

These electronic gremlins will be on-line, all the time, always on. In contrast, in the past, a res > (That was, of course, before the invention of the teenager. What we now call Internet connectivity will not be an issue. Internet connectivity will be near 100%, like electricity, because the Internet will have been liberated from the terror of the PC as its gateway. The PC must be the most consumer-unfriendly consumer product ever built since the unicycle. Often these devices will be connected by wireless. We will be able to use more extreme frequencies of the electro-magnetic spectrum, and to cram much more information into what we have. The wireless revolution will lead to a revolution of telecommunications ubiquity in time and space. Whereas in the past we were reachable only when we huddled near nodes called homes and offices, we can now cover the other 98% of the map. Anytime, anywhere. We will walk down the street, mumbling into our lapel, reading our heads-up displays in our eyeglasses. IBM is releasing a postage-size transparent display screen that looks like a sunglass lens. Web surfing on the run. And for those that do not want to read while they drive, Motorola is releasing a voice web makeup language that makes it possible to have information and messages read to you from web pages. Being connected will be a near-continuous experience.

With all these information streams growing, the question arises whether the transmission capacity will be able to keep up, or whether it will remain the bottleneck, as it is now. Will the World Wide Web becomes the World Wide Stall?

Here, too, the technological trends are favorable. Thank God, or else we’d have a revolution of the digitally compressed. Opto-electronics will be the silicon electronics of the next decade. Erbium doping accelerates amplification. Fiber gratings and tunable lasers increase the bandw > Dense Wave Division Multiplexing reaches now 100 windows. Integrated optical chips are likely, with a similar impact of the integrated electronic chip in the 1970s. Fiber optic transmission capability will grow, for the foreseeable future, at a rate probably double that of processing, since it is further behind. There are vast increases in long-distance backbone capacity fuelled by the combination of technical progress, abundant financing, and regulatory liberalization. New carriers are entering and adopting these technologies, such as Qwest, Level 3, Williams, IXC. Incumbent carriers are upgrading. And RBOCs are dreaming that by the year 202 they will have finally passed the checklist. Experimentally, NEC in Japan has reached a 3.5 terabits transmission rate over a single fiber strand. If that becomes the off-the-shelf transmission rate 20 years form now, which seems pretty conservative and if we accept the build out plans of the carriers at face value. We’ll have a national backbone capacity of 40 Megabits per household. That’s more than dozen-compressed video channels per household, simultaneously with any other household, all-watching different programs at the same time!

Of course, this is long distance capacity, but the local capacity will grow with it. Demand creates supply. Supply creates demand. The alphabet soup of contestants includes DSL, FTTC, DCM, HFC, LMDS, WLL, HALO blimps, whatever.

To summarize the technical trends: The decade of the 90s was dominated by the revolution in processing power, based on fundamental VLSI technology advances of the 80s. For a while, transmission couldn’t keep up with processing, because it was much more expensive to widen the channels than to add the driver instead of the brake.

And what will be the impact of these trends?

The most obvious one is that prices drop. Transmission becomes commodity. MCI Worldcom’s winning b > Similarly, for international transmission, new projects will raise capacity was 5.1 Gbps in ’94, 65 Gbps in ’99, and 865 Gbps in 2003 almost a quadrupling every two years. And that’s without the adoption of the next round of innovations in fiber optics. As that happens, international calls become priced at flat rate, near zero. On an architectural level, networks become engineered for data, not voice, because data, which is now about 50% of traffic, will be 98% in a few uears. Bandw > And with flat pricing, monthly phone bills that itemize calls will probably become unnecessary.

And this is, as far the conventional prov > To a world with abundant information, in which all of mankind are linked up and well informed, in which information conquers illness, ignorance, and poverty, and in which democracy thrives. How wonderful. And, how naпve.

It’s a bit like techies rhapsodizing a hundred years ago over the automobile. There will be no smelly horse anymore! Everything will be shining and clean. And everyone will take a leisurely fun drive to work in the morning and be happy! And the sky will be blue!

In such an environment of telecom plenty, what will be the nature of telecom regulation? The problem is that the future is always a bit of an inkblot test, into which everyone projects their fantasies, desires, and nightmares. When it comes to the Internet, some see education and democracy. Others see pornography and chaos. (It’s similar when it comes to )? And since so many have had some negative experience with government, one fantasizes of its demise. The knee jerk response is: NO. Thank you, Mr. Regulator, it’s been a nice long century together. But now, we’ve got the Internet!

Part of this is wishful thinking. It’s a preference for return to the Garden of Eden before the apple and the Mackintosh, a hope for autonomy and self-reliance.

In the past, this notion of the withering away of the state has been held by Marxists and utopian socialists. Today it’s become the worldview of Silicon Valley billionaires (to be redundant who skipped history >

Of course, some of the traditional regulatory agenda becomes unnecessary. Price regulation is not needed under a w > Neither is profit regulation, or quality regulation. Even interconnection and unbundling are important only where there is market power and bottleneck control.

Since many of these rules are set or administered by the 50 states, it might suggest a disappearance of state regulation.

I doubt that. And this isn’t because of some bureaucrats who can’t let go. Regulation exists in response to interest groups. Whether they are incumbents, entrants, consumers, rural res > These interest groups will never disappear. And new ones will emerge.

If anything, the easy communication of the Internet will make it easier for interest groups to organize themselves. Just remember when the issues of Internet access charges came up. The FCC, Congress, and the White House were inundated by a campaign of millions of e-mail messages, and they beat a hasty retreat. So what is it that all of these stakeholder groups will want? At least 10 things. I’ll give you some of them now.

1. Redistribution. In a democratic system, a majority always wants something from the minority. Many people believe that somehow the efficiency of competition will shrink the subs > But that assumes that the definition of the pie does not grow. With telecommunications becoming ever more important, not having the right connectivity becomes a major disadvantage. That’s why we hear about the info poor, the digital div > For example, Subcommittee Chairman Seen Burns announced that his legislative priority for this session is to accelerate advanced services and fiber to rural areas. This legislature does not seem to be exactly very deregulatory. And all this will be extended, in time, to DSL, cable modems, video server access, and mobile telephony.

Part of the problem is that the old sources for subs > In consequence, new ways to raise money and to cross-subs >

This will be a major battlefield of the future.

2. E - commerce And consumer protection. In the past, the Internet confronted little resistance in the political sphere. It faced public fascination, and rightfully so. Eyebrows were raised over porn and privacy, both politically very correct targets of complaints. But, this will inevitably change. As the Internet moves from a nerd preserve to shopping mall and mass medium, it is unrealistic to expect that it will be treated differently than the rest of society’s transactions. Which means that it is unrealistic to expect it to be left alone.

Inevitably, there will be problems of fraud, misrepresentation, and theft. And therefore there will be pressures for consumer protective regulation. Now a lot of people say that one cannot regulate the Internet, even if one wanted to. After all, don’t high school k > But that’s not the end of the story. If you can’t reach the bits, you can go after the physical parts. If you can’t block mobile elements, you can try to reach the static ones. Such as Networks, they can’t h > Assets. Land. Customers. This might not be elegant, but neither is the tax code. There are plenty of ways to do so. And many of them involve the carriers and service prov > And here, states have traditionally played the major role in consumer protection. So, as consumer protection problems emerge, there will be public deviance for telecom regulators to “do something.” Carriers and ISPs will become responsible for the use of their networks.

3. The problem of e-commerce trade wars. This is more of a federal issue, but inevitably the states will also be drawn into it. Zero cost global transmission leads to a realignment of commercial transactions. And here, US firms will dominate globally. They are technologically at the leading edge, with risk capital at their disposal, with the advantage of early entrant, and a large home market. Once they establish a successful model for the US market, and once transmission price is near zero, there is no reason to stop at the border.

But this success will lead to backlash. Big losers are usually good in at least one thing, organizing themselves. Inevitably, they will use the domestic and international regulatory apparatus to slow things down. One can see it already: in the transatlantic fights over privacy; in the Anational culture quotas, in the fights over domain name registration, in the fights over electronic signatures and authentication. Right now, the Clinton administration is going around the world, preaching the Internet free trade zone.

But who are we to complain? Imagine how the tune will be different when we face a serious influx of Mexican tele-doctors. Monaco tele-gambling. Bahamian tax dodges. Thai child tele-pornography. Nigerian securities deals. There is no way we’d let this happen without protective regulation. And here, too, telecom prov > And the states will do much of the regulating.

4. Monopoly power.

Many people believe that issues of market power do not apply to the Internet, because it is so wide open that any dog can start it’s own business. We are told that the bit economy plays by different economic rules than the atom economy, that silicon-based transactions are different from this based on carbon, and similar nonsense.

It’s unclear why packet switching would make Adam Smith obsolete. We might indeed observe that computer communication and market power have been kissing cousins for a long time: AT&T; IBM; Microsoft; Intel. Each of them deserves a chapter in any textbook on antitrust. And why should it stop here? Yahoo? AOL? Amazon. com? Are they the next chapters? Why not? Presumably, these companies are trading at such high levels because of investor expectations of abnormally high profits, not because of a competitive return. The economic logic is relatively simple. Development costs are high, marginal costs are low. So there are large economies of scale. Brands are important. First entrants have advantages. There are network externalities. The Internet may still have the image of small is beautiful, but the reality is changing fast.

Now some might object and point out how easy it is to set up a web page. True, but that’s for a narrowband world, and even there less and less so. In a broadband Internet world, Webster will be multimedia, v > He’s become the undivested AT &T of the 90's and beyond.

Other issues that will emerge on your agenda, only as a list for now:

5. Privacy Protection.

6. Intellectual Property Right Protection. A big issue for information producers, which gets them to call for an updated version of gunboat diplomacy.

7. Education and training.

Thus has been traditionally a major responsibility for the states.

Sales taxes an transactions on the Internet are inevitable unless all state sales taxes are scrapped, which seems highly improbable. This will thrust the states into Internet-based activities for better or worse. The alternative is to keep a tax-free island, which is unlikely.

9. Content Standards.

10. Legacy rules. We do not start from scratch. In the process of implementing the >96 Act and its own policies, the FCC and the states have added in recent years a great number of rules, usually in the name of competition. We regulate to deregulate. And the clarification and harmonization of these rules, and their upgrade to new circumstances will still add much more.

These are ten areas where government intervention will emerge or persist, in Washington and in the states. There are probably ten more.

The implication, in terms of action, is that to reduce legacy regulation, the old and the recent stuff, one cannot expect that technology and abundance will do it for you. That abundance will lead to a withering of traditional regulation. One has to go and change the equilibrium. But one should not be unrealistic on what can be achieved. A libertarian paradise will not happen, because while it is easy to embrace it in the abstract, everyone has a little exception in mind, a little help that they need. (Watch, for example, how the Internet ISP industry has started to seek now the regulation of the cable TV industry.

One way is to simply abolish the FCC. Which is what for example the Heritage Foundation proposes. But that would leave the field to the state commissions, which Heritage presumably likes even less. Also, even if the US does away with its regulatory agencies, other countries will not. So we may end up substituting regulation from Washington and Sacramento for regulation from Brussels. And in any event: This solution of flash cut is not likely to solve the problem. The interest groups in question will find some forum that will take up their case. Remember Judge Greene? Was it any better, as a process, to have an elderly judge with two law clerks slowly and non-expertly running the American telecom industry structure? The alternative is to focus on substantive policy, not on institutional structure.

If one wants to deal with legacy regulation, one should do so proactively. And this would mean that a commission and a legislature would look ahead and set goals for getting out of certain regulations, with a clear time plan. It means formulating an endgame scenario. The goal should be how, within 5 years, one could remove much of legacy regulation.

The problem here is the potential for dilatory action of incumbents in the meantime. But that could be dealt with by some schedule, with steps and dates along the way, and penalties (including a second divestiture) and rewards along the way.

This is actually an ambitious agenda. But if due does not set sights high, one will be the slow ship in the convoy to the Information Age. And it does not mean the disappearance of state or federal regulation in the communications sector. It means that one’s institutions need to reinvent themselves, and become expert in new, or different areas. Privacy Regulatory. Consumer protection in the cyber field. Broadband and mass media. Dealing with new types of market power. To do so the regulatory bodies need to transform themselves from early 20 th century utility-style commissions to early 221 st century communications protection agencies. Look forward. Change the culture. Change the expert mix. Acceleration the decision cycle. Explore. Experiment. This incidentally is the strongest argument for state commissions.

What then is the conclusion? Like it or not, regulatory bodies for communications will continue to exist, as vessels for society establishing some control mechanisms on electronic communication in a revolutionary environment. To expert otherwise feels good, but is not realistic. .

Most problems in these areas will be vastly over shadowed by the opportunities, and resolved by market forces. And to do so the regulatory bodies need to transform themselves from early 20 th century utility-style commissions to early 21 st century communications protection agencies. Look forward. Change the culture. Change the expert mix. Accelerate the decision cycle.

To survive, we need to innovate. It is also helping us. Because if we do not, we become irrelevant.

What then is the conclusion? Like it or not, regulatory bodies for communications will continue to exist, as vessels for society establishing some control mechanisms on electronic environment in a revolutionary environment. To expect otherwise feels good, but good feelings isn’t what Washington is about. Just ask poor Bill Clinton.

Pre-Pay Services

The POWER to Change Everything and Put the POWER in the Customers Hands

Pre-pay gives customers what they want - an opportunity for daily visibility and control over their utility power and consumption. Customers can now see the effect of their electric usage in real time and not once a month when traditional billing comes. Eliminating surprises and allowing the customer to set thresholds and budget their hard earned dollars. Just as you would with the gas in your gas tank, a pre-paid electric account, gives you the options to control when and how much you want to 'refill' your account. Customers don't always realize how much electric they consume on a daily basis and having the ability to keep tabs on what they do each day, allows them to make adjustments before it’s too late and the bill becomes too much to handle.

The POWER to Reach Everyone's Needs

Pre-pay is a perfect solution for anyone that wants to take control and be involved in how they use their electric. Pre-pay puts the responsibility into the customers hands and lets them be the driver of their account. Its a solution for all types of customers. Budget minded customers who like to keep track of how their dollars are spent with daily or weekly budget goals. Customers who are energy savings minded and want to control how much they consume each day. Customers who like feedback. Customers who want to prevent a barrier with a deposit fee. Customers who are paying for college or student utility bills. Customers who prefer flexibility with their payments and prefer to not have barriers on when they have to pay. Not matter the reason, pre-pay provides a solution that reaches many customers.

Pre-Pay provides the POWER of flexibility and the POWER to Stay Informed

Customers are now able to stay up to date and be notified of how they are using their energy, and how it is affecting their billing through real time feedback and not just once a month. Customers can receive real time text message alerts, emails and phone calls when they are over using or reaching a set limit. What to be alerted when to add money? What to be notified your account balance? Want to view estimated days on your balance? All easy with the Smarthub mobile app. Control the notifications you want to receive and set times for certain notifications to push to your phone or inbox. Want to manage your account online or over the phone? Absolutely a possibility with pre-pay.

Pre-Pay provides the POWER of Convenience

Want to 'refill' your account every week? Want to add a little here and there with each paycheck? Earned extra income from a recent yard sale or consignment and want to put a little back on your account? Absolutely. That is what pre-pay is for. Each day your balance will adjust based on your household consumption, allowing you to put back a little here and there. Not only that, but we provide lots of options for 'refueling' your account.

Stop by our office, 401 Olive Street, Monday-Friday, 7:30 a. m. to 4:15 p. m. to make a payment. Be sure to check for days our office will close early or close for Holidays. If paying in our office, customers will be required to make a minimum of a $25.00 payment. Use our 24/7 Kiosk located in the lobby of our main office. Our kiosk will accept check and debit/credit cards (with a small 3% fee) and cash. Pay over the phone 24/7 by calling: (270) 761-UPAY (8729) Pay online 24/7 by going to our website www. murray-ky. net, or theSmarthub website https://murrayky. smarthub. coop. Please note that a debit/credit card payment online, will result in a $3.95 convenience fee.

To simply manage your pre-pay account over the phone, you can call the provided 24/7 MyUsage number at (888) 220-6228 or (270) 761-UPAY.

Pre-Pay provides the POWER to combine additional services

Just as your electric is deducted daily, the cost of monthly broadband services (such as cable, internet, security or telephone) can be added to your pre-pay account and deducted daily. The addition of broadband services does require a utility credit check established by Online Utility Exchange. If a deposit is required for broadband services, customers can choose to add that charge to their account for $.17 daily. If a customer request a DVR and pose a credit risk, they will be required to pay a $100.00 deposit per box initially when signing up for services.

Pre-Pay provides the POWER Simplicity

No deposit. No monthly surprises with a traditional bill (in fact pre-pay customers do not receive a bill). An opportunity for energy savings and savings in your bank account. What's not to love? Are you a traditional customer currently and interested in switching? We can help!

Sign me up:

Disconnection

Should your balance fall below into the negative, you may be subject to immediate disconnection. Simply recharge your account by making a payment to MES. Once you meet the minimum reconnection balance of $25.00 and the $10.00 disconnection fee, your electric meter will be reconnected.

Reconciliations

Any account older than 10 days will be reconciled at the end of the month. These reconciliations may not be seen by the customer until the beginning of the following month. MyUsage is a third party vendor that communicates with MES’s billing and metering systems to create its usage statements, there may be variations due to rate structures and/or communications delays. As a result, any discrepancies between the MyUsage portal and MES’s billing systems will be corrected in reconciliations.

For after hours technical support, call (270) 753-5312

© 1999-2016 Murray Electric System. All Rights Reserved. | Website Design Services & Web Hosting by Helix Creative, LLC

Wireless Taxes and Fees Climb Again in 2018

Scott Mackey, Joseph Bishop-Henchman

Key Findings

A typical American household with four wireless phones paying $100 per month for taxable wireless service can expect to pay about $229 per year in wireless taxes, fees, and surcharges—up from $221 in 2017.

Nationally, these impositions make up about 19.1 percent of the average customer’s bill—the highest rate ever. Illinois now has the highest wireless taxes in the country at 27.6%, followed by Alaska at 26.1%, Washington at 26.1%, Nebraska at 25.5%, and New York at 25.2%.

Since 2008, average monthly wireless service bills per subscriber have dropped from just under $50 per-line per month to $38.66 per month—a 23 percent reduction. However, wireless taxes have increased from 15.1 percent to 19.1 percent of the average bill—a 27 percent increase.

Most states impose higher taxes, fees, and surcharges on wireless service than on other taxable goods and services. In Alaska, which has no state sales tax but allows local sales taxes, wireless taxes are nearly eight times higher than local sales taxes. Other states with significantly higher wireless taxes include Nebraska (2.6 times higher), Pennsylvania (2.3 times higher), Maryland (2.3 times higher) and Illinois (2.2 times higher).

At the end of 2017, over 68 percent of poor adults had only wireless for their phone service, and 53 percent of all adults were wireless only. Excessive taxes and fees, especially the very high per line charges like those imposed in Chicago and Baltimore, impose a disproportionate burden on low-income consumers. In Chicago, taxes on a family with four lines of taxable wireless service paying $100 per month are nearly $500 per year—over 40 percent of the bill.

Executive Summary

Taxes, fees, and governmental surcharges on wireless consumers increased in 2018, jumping from 18.5 percent to 19.1 percent of the customer’s bill. An American household with four wireless phones paying $100 per month for wireless voice service can expect to pay about $229 per year in wireless taxes, fees, and surcharges—up from $221 in 2017.

State and local wireless taxes increased from 12.1% to 12.5%, the fifth consecutive increase. The Federal Universal Service Fund surcharge (FUSF) increased from 6.3 percent to 6.6 percent of the typical wireless bill.

Fortunately for wireless consumers, intense price competition produced a large reduction in the average monthly per-line cost of wireless service. Average revenue per subscriber fell dramatically for the second year in a row, from $41.50 per month in 2017 to $38.66 per month in 2018. Unfortunately, consumers were not able to fully enjoy this price reduction because taxes, fees, and surcharges continue to remain stubbornly high.

Wireless consumers will pay an estimated $16.1 billion in taxes, fees, and government surcharges to federal, state, and local governments in 2018 based on the tax rates calculated in this report. These taxes, fees, and surcharges break down as follows:

$6.1 billion in sales taxes and other nondiscriminatory consumption taxes $4.9 billion in federal Universal Service Fund surcharges $2.8 billion in 911 fees, a category that includes hundreds of millions of dollars that are not actually used for 911 purposes. $2.2 billion in other industry-specific state and local taxes and fees.

Consumers in Illinois, Alaska, Washington, and Nebraska pay the highest wireless taxes in the country, while wireless users in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada pay the lowest wireless taxes.

Wireless service is increasingly the sole means of communications and connectivity for many Americans, particularly young people and those with lower incomes. At the end of 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control, about 68 percent of all poor adults lived in wireless-only households and 53 percent of all adults of all incomes lived in wireless-only households.[1] These excessive taxes and fees–especially those that impose high per-line taxes and fees–impose a disproportionate tax burden on those least able to afford them.

Wireless Taxes and Fees Increase in 2018

This is the ninth in a series of reports that examines trends in taxes, fees, and government surcharges imposed on wireless service by federal, state, and local governments since 2003. The methodology for the report, which was originally developed by the Committee on State Taxation in a 1999 report, is detailed in Appendix A.

Table 1 shows national trends in tax rates imposed by all levels of government on taxable wireless service between 2003 and 2018. Between 2005 and 2006, wireless taxes dropped after the federal courts forced the IRS to end the imposition of the 3% federal excise tax on wireless service. After that court decision, wireless tax rates dropped to a low of 14.1%. Since then, however, wireless tax rates have climbed steadily to their current rate of 19.1%.

Weighted Average Wireless: State & Local tax & fee Wireless: Federal tax & fee Wireless: Federal/State/Local tax & fee General Sales/Use Tax Disparity — Wireless Tax Over General Sales Tax Table 1. US Average Wireless and General Sales & Use Tax Rates

Note: Federal includes 3% federal excise tax (until 5/2006) and federal universal service fund charge, which is set by the FCC and varies quarterly: Federal USF 7/1/2018 — 37.1% Interstate safe harbor x 17.9% contribution factor = 6.34% effective tax rate http://www. usac. org/cont/tools/contribution-factors. aspx Source: Methodology derived from Committee on State Taxation, “50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation,” May 2005. Updated July 2018 from state statutes, FCC data, and local ordinances by Scott Mackey, Leonine Public Affairs LLP, Montpelier, VT.
1/1/2003	10.20%	5.07%	15.27%	6.87%	3.33%
4/1/2004	10.74%	5.48%	16.22%	6.93%	3.81%
7/1/2005	10.94%	5.91%	16.85%	6.94%	4.00%
7/1/2006	11.14%	2.99%	14.13%	7.04%	4.10%
7/1/2007	11.00%	4.19%	15.19%	7.07%	3.93%
7/1/2008	10.86%	4.23%	15.09%	7.11%	3.75%
7/1/2009	10.74%	4.79%	15.53%	7.26%	3.48%
7/1/2010	11.21%	5.05%	16.26%	7.42%	3.79%
7/1/2012	11.36%	5.82%	17.18%	7.33%	4.03%
7/1/2014	11.23%	5.82%	17.05%	7.51%	3.72%
7/1/2015	11.50%	6.46%	17.96%	7.57%	3.93%
7/1/2016	11.93%	6.64%	18.57%	7.61%	4.32%
7/1/2017	12.11%	6.34%	18.46%	7.65%	4.46%
7/1/2018	12.46%	6.64%	19.10%	7.65%	4.81%

Table 1 also separates the impact of federal taxes and surcharges from state and local government taxes, fees, and surcharges. Throughout the period, state and local taxes have been trending upward steadily, from 10.2% in 2003 to their current level of 12.5% in 2018. The FUSF surcharge has also increased throughout the period. For a detailed explanation of the FUSF and how it is imposed, see Appendix B.

Table 1 also shows the general trends in average tax rates of the sales and use tax, which is the primary broad-based consumption tax imposed by 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Since 2003, the average state-local sales tax rate has increased by about 0.8 percentage points—from 6.87% to 7.65%. During that same period, wireless taxes increased by 2.3 percentage points—from 10.2% to 12.5%. Average wireless tax rates increased nearly three times faster than average sales tax rates.

Wireless industry competition has led to significant reductions in average monthly bills since 2008, a trend that accelerated dramatically in 2017 and 2018, when average bills dropped from $44.65 per month in 2016 to $38.66 per month in 2018. Since 2008, average wireless monthly bills have dropped from just under $50 per month to $38.66 per month–a 23 percent reduction–while wireless taxes have increased from 15.1% to 19.1%—a 27 percent increase. Unfortunately, consumers have not enjoyed the full benefits of wireless price competition because taxes, fees, and government surcharges continue to increase.

Figure 1.

Stay Informed on Tax Policy Research and Analysis

Table 2 shows wireless tax, fee, and government surcharge rates as of July 2018. Column 1 shows the average combined state-local tax rate in the largest city and the capital city in each state, while column 2 shows the effective rate of the FUSF surcharge. In 2018, due to a large increase in 911 fees in Chicago and statewide, Illinois surpassed Washington state with the highest wireless tax rates in the country at 27.55%, followed by Alaska at 26.13%. Alaska’s state universal service fund surcharge has increased dramatically in the last few years, vaulting Alaska into its position as the second highest wireless tax state. Just two years ago, Alaska was not even in the top 10.

Table 2. Taxes, Fees, and Government Charges on Wireless Service, July 2018

Source: Methodology from COST, “50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation,” May 2005. Updated July 2018 using state statutes, FCC data, and local ordinances.

2018 Wireless State-Local Rate 2018 Federal USF Rate 2018 Combined Federal/State/Local Rate

1	Illinois	20.91%	6.64%	27.55%
2	Alaska	19.49%	6.64%	26.13%
3	Washington	19.41%	6.64%	26.05%
4	Nebraska	18.84%	6.64%	25.48%
5	New York	18.56%	6.64%	25.20%
6	Pennsylvania	16.27%	6.64%	22.91%
7	Rhode Island	15.26%	6.64%	21.90%
8	Arkansas	15.22%	6.64%	21.86%
9	Florida	14.83%	6.64%	21.47%
10	Missouri	14.79%	6.64%	21.43%
11	Utah	14.70%	6.64%	21.34%
12	Kansas	14.59%	6.64%	21.23%
13	South Dakota	14.22%	6.64%	20.86%
14	North Dakota	14.13%	6.64%	20.77%
15	Maryland	13.89%	6.64%	20.53%
16	Puerto Rico	13.67%	6.64%	20.31%
17	New Mexico	13.49%	6.64%	20.13%
18	California	13.23%	6.64%	19.87%
19	Arizona	12.57%	6.64%	19.21%
20	South Carolina	12.56%	6.64%	19.20%
21	Tennessee	12.50%	6.64%	19.14%
22	Colorado	12.34%	6.64%	18.98%
23	District of Columbia	11.97%	6.64%	18.61%
24	Indiana	11.79%	6.64%	18.43%
25	Texas	11.77%	6.64%	18.41%
26	Georgia	11.53%	6.64%	18.17%
27	Oklahoma	11.27%	6.64%	17.91%
28	Kentucky	10.92%	6.64%	17.56%
29	Minnesota	10.54%	6.64%	17.18%
30	Alabama	10.53%	6.64%	17.17%
31	Louisiana	10.50%	6.64%	17.14%
32	Mississippi	9.59%	6.64%	16.23%
33	Iowa	9.16%	6.64%	15.80%
34	Wisconsin	8.99%	6.64%	15.63%
35	New Jersey	8.95%	6.64%	15.59%
36	New Hampshire	8.94%	6.64%	15.58%
37	Maine	8.93%	6.64%	15.57%
38	North Carolina	8.89%	6.64%	15.53%
39	Massachusetts	8.84%	6.64%	15.48%
40	Wyoming	8.74%	6.64%	15.38%
41	West Virginia	8.64%	6.64%	15.28%
42	Ohio	8.55%	6.64%	15.19%
43	Vermont	8.50%	6.64%	15.14%
44	Michigan	8.35%	6.64%	14.99%
45	Connecticut	7.82%	6.64%	14.46%
46	Hawaii	7.75%	6.64%	14.39%
47	Virginia	6.94%	6.64%	13.58%
48	Montana	6.60%	6.64%	13.24%
49	Delaware	6.55%	6.64%	13.19%
50	Nevada	3.27%	6.64%	9.91%
51	Idaho	2.59%	6.64%	9.23%
52	Oregon	2.10%	6.64%	8.74%
Weighted Avg.	12.46%	6.64%	19.10%
Simple Avg.	11.44%	6.64%	18.08%

Figure 2 maps the states by average state-local rates, without including the FUSF imposition. Other than the cluster of low-tax states in the western United States, there does not appear to be any strong regional patterns to the distribution of high-tax and low-tax states. The New England states tend to have lower wireless tax rates, while the high-tax states are scattered throughout the country.

Figure 2.

Stay Informed on Tax Policy Research and Analysis

One of the longstanding arguments for reform of wireless taxation is the disparity in tax burdens on wireless as compared to broad-based consumption taxes imposed on other goods and taxable services subject to sales and use taxes. Wireless and other telecommunications are one of the few services that are consistently subject to sales and use taxes by states with both narrow and broad sales tax bases. Furthermore, states like Delaware, Montana, and New Hampshire that do not impose a sales tax have specific taxes on wireless and other communications services.

Table 3 ranks the states by comparing the disparity between the tax rates imposed on wireless service to the combined state and local sales tax rate in each state. Alaska leads all states in this regard, imposing wireless taxes that are nearly eight times higher than average sales tax rates—19.5% vs 2.5%. Other states with large disparities include Nebraska, Illinois, New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. New Hampshire, Delaware, and Montana–all states that do not have general sales taxes but impose taxes on wireless service–rank relatively high on the disparity index even though their overall wireless tax rates are relatively low by national standards. Table 3 also shows that two states–Idaho and Nevada–impose lower taxes on wireless service than on other goods and services subject to the sales tax.

Total Taxes Paid

Wireless consumers pay about $9.9 billion in taxes and fees that are specifically levied on telecommunications services but not on other taxable goods and services. This total includes approximately $4.9 billion in FUSF charges, $2.8 billion in 911 fees, and another $2.2 billion in other discriminatory state and local taxes, fees, and government surcharges. The remaining $6.1 billion in taxes on wireless service are nondiscriminatory sales and use taxes that are imposed on other taxable goods and services.[2]

Appendix C provides a detailed breakdown of the specific taxes, fees, and government surcharges imposed in each state, including the respective rates of each. To facilitate interstate comparisons, local rates imposed in the most populated city and the capital city in each state are averaged into a single rate. In the case of taxes and fees that are imposed on a flat per-line basis–for example, $1.00 per month per line–the tax is converted from a flat amount to a percentage by dividing the flat amount by the industry average revenue per line of $38.66 per month. For a detailed description of the methodology, please see Appendix A.

Trends in Wireless Taxes and Fees

911 Fees

Most states impose 911 fees to fund capital expenses associated with the 911 system, and in some states fees fund operations as well. Wireless 911 fees vary greatly by state, from a low of zero in Missouri[3] to a high of $3.34 per line in West Virginia. Most wireless 911 fees are levied at uniform rates statewide, although there are a few exceptions. In 2018, the state of Illinois increased the 911 fee from 87 cents per line per month to $1.50 per line per month except in the city of Chicago, where the fee was increased from $3.90 per line to $5.00 per line per month.

Table 3. Disparity Between Wireless Tax & Fee Rate and General Sales Tax Rate, July 2018

Source: Methodology from COST, “50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation,” May 2005. Updated July 2018 using state statutes, FCC data, and local ordinances.

State-Local Sales Tax Rate State-Local Wireless Tax Rate Wireless Over/Under Sales Tax Rate Disparity Multiple

Alaska	2.50%	19.49%	16.99%	7.80
Nebraska	7.13%	18.84%	11.71%	2.64
Illinois	9.38%	20.91%	11.53%	2.23
New York	8.44%	18.56%	10.12%	2.20
Washington	9.45%	19.41%	9.96%	2.05
Pennsylvania	7.00%	16.27%	9.27%	2.32
New Hampshire	0.00%	8.94%	8.94%	NA
Rhode Island	7.00%	15.26%	8.26%	2.18
Maryland	6.00%	13.89%	7.89%	2.31
Utah	6.85%	14.70%	7.85%	2.15
South Dakota	6.50%	14.22%	7.72%	2.19
Florida	7.13%	14.83%	7.71%	2.08
North Dakota	7.00%	14.13%	7.13%	2.02
Montana	0.00%	6.60%	6.60%	NA
Delaware	0.00%	6.55%	6.55%	NA
Missouri	8.29%	14.79%	6.50%	1.78
Kansas	8.33%	14.59%	6.26%	1.75
District of Columbia	5.75%	11.97%	6.22%	2.08
Arkansas	9.38%	15.22%	5.85%	1.62
New Mexico	7.91%	13.49%	5.58%	1.71
Kentucky	6.00%	10.92%	4.92%	1.82
Indiana	7.00%	11.79%	4.79%	1.68
California	8.75%	13.23%	4.48%	1.51
Colorado	7.95%	12.34%	4.39%	1.55
South Carolina	8.50%	12.56%	4.06%	1.48
Arizona	8.60%	12.57%	3.97%	1.46
Hawaii	4.00%	7.75%	3.75%	1.94
Wyoming	5.00%	8.74%	3.74%	1.75
Texas	8.25%	11.77%	3.52%	1.43
Wisconsin	5.55%	8.99%	3.44%	1.62
Maine	5.50%	8.93%	3.43%	1.62
Tennessee	9.25%	12.50%	3.25%	1.35
Georgia	8.45%	11.53%	3.08%	1.36
Minnesota	7.70%	10.54%	2.84%	1.37
Oklahoma	8.45%	11.27%	2.82%	1.33
Iowa	6.50%	9.16%	2.66%	1.41
Massachusetts	6.25%	8.84%	2.59%	1.41
Michigan	6.00%	8.35%	2.35%	1.39
Puerto Rico	11.50%	13.67%	2.17%	1.19
Oregon	0.00%	2.10%	2.10%	NA
Mississippi	7.50%	9.59%	2.09%	1.28
New Jersey	6.88%	8.95%	2.08%	1.30
Vermont	6.50%	8.50%	2.00%	1.31
West Virginia	7.00%	8.64%	1.64%	1.23
North Carolina	7.25%	8.89%	1.64%	1.23
Connecticut	6.35%	7.82%	1.47%	1.23
Virginia	5.65%	6.94%	1.29%	1.23
Louisiana	9.45%	10.50%	1.05%	1.11
Ohio	7.75%	8.55%	0.80%	1.10
Alabama	10.00%	10.53%	0.53%	1.05
Idaho	6.00%	2.59%	-3.41%	0.43
Nevada	8.26%	3.27%	-4.99%	0.40
US Weighted Average	7.65%	12.46%	4.81%	1.63

Other states where 911 fees increased in 2018 include Alaska, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Utah. Connecticut was the only state to reduce the 911 fee. Missouri enacted legislation in 2018 that permits local jurisdictions to impose a wireless 911 fee of up to $1.00 per month per line, if approved by the voters. Prior to passage of this legislation, Missouri was one of only two states in the country that did not impose state or local 911 fees on wireless service.

Unfortunately, according to the FCC, some states and localities routinely divert 911 fees for other purposes.[4] For example, the city of Chicago used the authority granted by the legislature to increase its 911 fee from $3.90 per line to $5.00 per line, effective January 1, 2018. Media reports suggested that the 911 fee increase was intended to cover a shortfall in city pension obligations.[5] Other states that routinely divert 911 fees paid by wireless consumers to other purposes include New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

State Universal Service Funds

Some states have their own universal service funds (USF) that provide subsidies for many of the same purposes as the FUSF. State USF surcharges are imposed on intrastate revenues, while the FUSF is imposed on interstate revenues. In states like Alaska, Arkansas, California, Kansas, and Nebraska, high state USF surcharge rates add significantly to the overall burden on wireless consumers. For example, the USF rate in Alaska is 19.0 percent of all intrastate charges. In just two years, significant increases in the state USF rate propelled Alaska upward in the overall wireless tax rankings from 14 th highest in 2015 to second highest in 2018. Appendix B lists the rates in all the 20 states with USF charges.

In 2018, state USF rates increased in Alaska, California, Indiana, Kansas, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Wyoming. Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin lowered the rates of their state USF surcharges. Utah shifted its USF imposition from a percentage of intrastate revenue to a fixed amount per line, which on balance slightly reduced the effective rate of the USF on single-line plans.

State-Level Wireless Taxes

In addition to 911 fees and state USF charges, 14 states impose taxes on wireless service that are either in addition to state sales taxes or in lieu of sales taxes but imposed at a higher rate than the state sales tax. Table 4 below lists these states. No states increased or decreased these discriminatory state wireless taxes in 2018.

Table 4. State Wireless Taxes by Type State Gross Receipts Tax in Addition to Sales Tax Higher State Tax Rate in Lieu of Sales Tax Wireless Tax but No State Sales Tax

Indiana	District of Columbia	Delaware
Kentucky	Florida	Montana
New York	Illinois	New Hampshire
North Dakota	Maine
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota

Local Wireless Taxes

Many local governments also impose discriminatory taxes on wireless consumers. Many of these are legacy taxes that were established during the regulated telephone monopoly era that existed prior until the late 1980s. Local governments in some states have longstanding authority to impose “right-of-way” fees on telephone companies for placing poles, wires, and other landline infrastructure on public property. In other states, localities have the authority to impose franchise fees on telephone companies in exchange for an exclusive franchise agreement to provide service within the municipality.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, when wireless service began to displace landline service, localities became concerned about losing revenues and sought to extend these legacy fees to wireless providers even though wireless providers did not receive the same benefits for which the fees were established. For example, a wireless provider does not receive the ability to access the public right-of-way to place equipment. Instead, wireless providers negotiate a rental agreement for the use of public property similar to agreements negotiated with private property owners. In addition, wireless providers must pay billions to purchase spectrum from the federal government through auctions held by the FCC.

Local governments in 12 states currently impose some type of tax or fee on wireless service over and above any broad-based local sales tax. In most of these states, the local wireless tax is in addition to state taxes. California is the exception—wireless service is not subject to sales taxes but is subject to local Utility User Taxes at rates as high as 11%. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the types of local wireless taxes.

Table 5. Local Wireless Taxes by Type Privilege, License or User Taxes State-Authorized Telecom Taxes School District and Other Special District Taxes

Arizona	Florida	Kentucky
California	Illinois	New York
Maryland	Maryland
Missouri	New York
Nebraska	Utah
Nevada
South Carolina
Washington

Local government taxes have a significant impact on the overall tax burden on wireless consumers in many of the states that rank high in the overall wireless tax and fee burden. In most of the top 10 states shown on Table 2 with the highest wireless taxes, local taxes play a prominent role. Nebraska allows local business license taxes with rates as high as 6.25%. Washington allows municipal governments to impose “utility franchise taxes” with rates as high as 9%. New York allows New York City, other selected cities, school districts, and certain transit districts to levy various wireless taxes in addition to county 911 fees. Finally, Florida and Illinois have special state communications taxes with a local add-on that result in rates typically two times higher than the general sales tax rates.

Table 6 illustrates the impact of taxes and fees on consumers in selected large cities around the country. Wireless service is increasingly becoming the sole means of communication and connectivity for many Americans, particularly those struggling to overcome poverty. At the end of 2017, over 68 percent of all poor adults had only wireless service, and 53 percent of all adults were wireless only. [6] Excessive local taxes and fees, especially the very high per-line charges like those imposed in Chicago and Baltimore, impose a disproportionate burden on low-income consumers. In Chicago, taxes on a family with four lines of taxable wireless service paying $100 per month are nearly $500 per year—over 40 percent of the bill.

Table 6. Federal, State, and Local Wireless Taxes and Fees on Multi-Line Plans in Selected Cities, July 2018 City Tax on 4-line voice plan at $100 per month Effective Tax Rate

City

Tax on Single Line Voice Plan Costing $38.66 per month

Effective Tax Rate

Chicago, IL	$40.64	40.64%
Baltimore, MD	$29.84	29.84%
New York, NY	$27.11	27.11%
Seattle, WA	$26.54	26.54%
Philadelphia, PA	$26.24	26.24%
Omaha, NE	$26.14	26.14%
Providence, RI	$23.68	23.68%
Tallahassee, FL	$22.58	22.58%
Kansas City, MO	$21.49	21.49%
Los Angeles, CA	$20.87	20.87%
Chicago, IL	$12.98	33.57%
Baltimore, MD	$9.94	25.70%
Omaha, NE	$9.85	25.48%
Seattle, WA	$9.74	25.20%
New York, NY	$9.66	24.99%
Philadelphia, PA	$9.24	23.91%
Tallahassee, FL	$8.51	22.01%
Providence, RI	$8.47	21.90%
Kansas City, MO	$8.31	21.49%
Los Angeles, CA	$8.07	20.87%

The Impact of Excessive Wireless Taxes

The popularity of wireless service, and the explosive growth in the number of wireless subscribers, have led some to question whether wireless taxes matter to wireless consumers and the wireless industry. However, there are two compelling reasons why policymakers should be cautious about expanding wireless taxes, fees, and surcharges. First, as discussed above, wireless taxes and fees are regressive and have a disproportionate impact on poorer citizens. Excessive taxes and fees may reduce low-income consumer access to wireless service at a time when such access is critical to economic success. Second, discriminatory taxes may slow investment in wireless infrastructure. Ample evidence exists that investments in wireless networks provide economic benefits to the broader economy because so many sectors–transportation, health care, energy, education, even government–use wireless networks to boost productivity and efficiency.

Network investment is important not only to consumers and businesses that use these networks, but to the entire American economy. A report by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris surveyed the evidence not only from the United States and Europe but from the developing world as well. [7] Economists that have examined the link between investments in communications and information technology infrastructure and economic growth have consistently found a strong link. Simply put, wireless infrastructure investment enables an entire entrepreneurial culture to focus on creating applications and devices to make businesses more productive and to improve the lives of consumers. These tools in turn make businesses more productive and profitable so that they can create new jobs that generate economic activity and tax revenues for governments.

While most infrastructure investments create these types of multiplier effects, the multiplier effects for telecommunications infrastructure are higher than other industries because communications and information technology are so deeply embedded in business processes. These infrastructure investments also benefit the government and nonprofit sectors in ways that do not necessarily show up directly in economic statistics but nonetheless make these sectors more efficient and enable them to lower the cost of providing government services.

As noted in the ICC report, “Remedying the discriminatory tax treatment of telecom goods and services may reduce tax receipts in the short-term, but the longer-term increase in the use of advanced capability devices, service demand, and network deployment resulting from these tax reductions is likely to counteract this loss of revenue over time.” [8] Policymakers need to weigh the trade-offs between the short-term revenue benefits of excessive wireless taxes versus the long-term economic impact on the state from reduced infrastructure investment.

Conclusion

Wireless consumers continue to be burdened with higher taxes, fees, and surcharges in many states and localities across the United States. With state and local governments continuing to face revenue challenges, the wireless industry and its customers continue to be an attractive target for raising new revenues. Excessive taxes on wireless consumers disproportionately impacts poorer families and may have ramifications for long-term state economic development and growth. Higher taxes on wireless service, coupled with increased taxes on wireless investments, may lead to slower deployment of wireless network infrastructure, including fourth and fifth generation (“4G” and “5G”) wireless broadband technologies—a key element to the future success of Smart Cities.

States should study their existing communications tax structure and consider policies that transition their tax systems away from narrowly-based wireless taxes and toward broad-based tax sources that do not distort consumer purchasing decisions and do not slow investment in critical infrastructure like wireless broadband. Florida took a step in the right direction by reducing the Communications Services Tax in 2015, but wireless tax rates there are still well above the sales tax. Reform of communications taxes in states with excessive tax rates would position those states to attract additional wireless infrastructure investments that generate economic growth through the new jobs and revenue growth they produce while helping provide relief to low-income wireless users.

Appendix A: Methodology

The methodology used in this report to calculate wireless taxes compares the applicable federal, state, and local tax rates on wireless voice service in the capital city and the most populated city in each state. This methodology was developed by the Committee on State Taxation (COST) in its landmark “50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation,” first published in 2000.

The use of a consistent methodology allows for accurate time-series comparisons across states and over time. However, changes in consumer demand for wireless services pose challenges when measuring the impact of wireless taxes on consumer bills. In particular, two trends in the industry are significantly impacting the amount of taxes that wireless consumers pay on their monthly bills.

First, a growing share of wireless consumer purchases is for internet access. Recent data from the U. S. Census Bureau surveys suggests that about 46 percent of total wireless service revenues are from the sale of internet access.[9] This percentage has been growing by roughly five percentage points per year since 2013, and this trend may accelerate because wireless consumers are demanding a growing number of internet-only devices.

Under federal law, all but a handful of states are currently precluded from imposing taxes on internet access and all states will be prohibited from taxing internet access after 2019. This suggests that of the “typical” consumer’s monthly expenditure of $38.66 per month, approximately $17.40 is for nontaxable internet access and $21.26 is for taxable wireless service. A consumer applying the effective tax rates in this report to their total bill will find that the effective tax rate overstates their actual tax paid if their calling plan includes both taxable voice service and exempt internet access.

Second, the report’s methodology understates the tax rate impact of flat rate taxes and fees—those that are imposed a set dollar amount per line. Under the report’s methodology, a $1.00 per month per-line tax is converted to a percentage amount by dividing $1.00 by the $38.66 average monthly bill, resulting in a tax rate of 2.59% in this example. However, these flat rate taxes and fees are only permitted to be imposed on the portion of the wireless bill that is not internet access. In this same example, if the $1.00 per month were divided by the taxable portion of the bill ($21.26), the tax rate would be 4.7%.

Notwithstanding these methodological challenges, the author has determined that the benefits of retaining the current methodology–consistent measurement of trends in tax rates over time–outweigh the benefits of changing the methodology to adjust to recent trends. This is particularly true since the Census Bureau has only been tracking the percentage of wireless expenditures on internet access since 2012, so it would not be possible to go back and retroactively adjust data prior to then.

Appendix B: What are Universal Service Funds?

The Federal Universal Service Fund (FUSF) is administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under open-ended authority from Congress. The program subsidizes telecommunications services for schools, libraries, hospitals, low-income people, and rural telephone companies operating in high-cost areas. The FCC has authority to set spending for these programs outside of the normal congressional appropriations process. After deciding what to spend on the various programs, the FCC sets the quarterly “contribution factor” or surcharge rate that telecommunications providers must remit to the USF to generate sufficient revenues to fund the expenditure commitments. Providers are permitted to surcharge these “contributions” on the phone bills.

FUSF surcharges apply only to interstate telecommunications services. They currently do not apply to internet access service, information services, and intrastate telecommunications services.

Wireless carriers generally sell plans that include either unlimited voice minutes or a fixed number of voice minutes for a set amount. Since these plans include both interstate calls (subject to the FUSF) and intrastate calls (not subject to FUSF), the FCC allows providers to allocate the fixed monthly plans to interstate and intrastate calls by one of two methods. Carriers may use traffic studies to show the actual split between interstate and interstate calls for all of its subscribers and apply the FUSF to the aggregated interstate portion of subscriber calls.

Alternatively, carriers may use a single uniform national “safe harbor” percentage to its fixed monthly plans. The FCC currently sets this safe harbor at 37.1 percent of the fixed monthly charge. For example, when determining the FUSF, a customer with a $50 monthly wireless voice calling plan is deemed to include $18.55 in interstate calls and $31.45 in intrastate calls. If a carrier elects to use the safe harbor, the FUSF rate would be applied to $18.55 of the bill each month.

The FUSF rate is set by the FCC each quarter. For the period beginning July 1, 2018, the rate is 17.9%. Thus, the FUSF rate applied on assessable wireless revenues using the FCC safe harbor amount is 6.64% (17.9% times 37.1%*).[10] Figure B1 below highlights the significant growth in the FCC contribution rate since 2003.

*Erratum: A previous version of this sentence incorrectly stated the FCC safe harbor as 62.9 percent.

Figure B1.

Stay Informed on Tax Policy Research and Analysis

Despite the growing burden on wireless consumers, Congress has shown little interest in restricting or otherwise limiting the growth of the programs funded through the FSUF.

States also have the authority to supplement the programs funded through the FUSF with their own programs funded through state universal services funds. The state programs are funded by surcharges applied to the intrastate portion of telephone charges. In this report, the inverse of the FUSF safe harbor is used to calculate the rates of the state USF in all states except Vermont, which imposes its state USF on both interstate and intrastate charges. As in the previous example, if a consumer has a $50 monthly wireless voice plan, 62.9 percent of that charge ($31.45) is deemed to be an intrastate service subject to the state USF charge and $18.55 is an interstate service not subject to state USF charges.

Like the FUSF, state universal service fund charges do not apply to internet access. State USF charges are key factors in the high wireless tax burden in states like Alaska, Arkansas, California, Kansas, and Nebraska.

Appendix C

State and Local Transaction Taxes, Fees, and Government Charges on Wireless Service — July 1, 2018

Sources: Committee on State Taxation, 50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation, May 2005. Updated July 2017 by Scott Mackey, Leonine Public Affairs LLP, using state statutes and regulations. Average Revenue Per Unit (ARPU): $41.50 per Cellular Telephone and Internet Association, July 2018.

*Erratum: A previous version of this table incorrectly stated the FCC safe harbor as 62.9 percent.

State Type of Tax Rate Comments

Alabama
AL Cell Service Tax	6.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
E911	4.53%	$1.75 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	10.53%
Alaska
Local Sales Tax	2.50%	Avg. of Juneau (5%) & Anchorage (0%)
Local E911	5.04%	Anchorage – $2.00; Juneau – $1.90
State USF	11.95%	19.0% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	19.49%
Arizona
State sales (transaction priv.)	5.60%	Intrastate telecommunications service
County sales (transaction priv.)	0.60%	Phoenix (Maricopa) = 0.7%; Tucson (Pima) = 0.5%
City telecommunications	5.85%	Avg. Phoenix (4.7%) & Tucson (7.0%)
911	0.52%	$.20 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	12.57%
Arkansas
State sales tax	6.50%
Local sales taxes	2.88%	Avg. Little Rock (2.5%) & Fayetteville (3.25%)
State High Cost Fund	4.09%	6.5% times FCC safe harbor
Wireless 911	1.68%	$.65 / month statewide.
TRS service & TRS equipment	0.08%	$.03 per line per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	15.22%
California
Local Utility User Tax	8.00%	Avg. of LA (9%) and Sacramento (7%)
State 911	0.47%	0.75% times FCC safe harbor
PUC fee	0.21%	0.33% times FCC safe harbor
ULTS (lifeline)	2.99%	4.75% times FCC safe harbor
Deaf/CRS	0.31%	0.5% times FCC safe harbor
High Cost Funds A & B	0.22%	0.35% times FCC safe harbor
Teleconnect Fund	0.68%	1.08% times FCC safe harbor
CASF – advanced services fund	0.35%	0.56% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	13.23%
Colorado
State Sales Tax	2.90%	Access and intrastate
Local Sales Tax — City/County	5.05%	Avg. of Denver (4.75%) & Colorado Springs (5.35%)
911	2.65%	Denver ($.70) / Colorado Springs ($1.35)
USF	1.64%	2.6% times FCC safe harbor
TDD Tax	0.10%	4 cents per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	12.34%
Connecticut
State sales tax	6.35%	Access, interstate and intrastate
911	1.47%	$.57 per line
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	7.82%
Delaware
Public Utility Gross Receipts Tax	5.00%	Access and intrastate
Local 911 tax	1.55%	$.60 / month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	6.55%
District of Columbia
Telecommunication Privilege Tax	10.00%	Monthly gross charge;
911	1.97%	$0.76 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	11.97%
Florida
State Communications services	7.44%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local Communications services	6.36%	Jacksonville 5.82%; Tallahassee 6.9%
911	1.03%	$.40/month statewide
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	14.83%
Georgia
State sales tax	3.62%	4% of “access charge” — assume $35
Local sales tax	4.03%	Avg. rate Atlanta (4.9%) & Augusta (4%)
Local 911	3.88%	Atlanta — $1.50/line; Augusta — $1.50/line
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	11.53%
Hawaii
Public service company tax	4.00%
Additional county tax	1.89%
PUC Fee	0.16%	0.25% of intrastate charges
Wireless 911 fee	1.71%	$.66 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	7.75%
Idaho
Telephone service assistance program	0.00%	Set annually by PUC — currently zero
Statewide wireless 911	2.59%	Boise = $1.00 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	2.59%
Illinois
State telecom excise tax	7.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Simplified municipal tax	5.50%	Avg. of Chicago (7%) & Springfield (4%)
Wireless 911	8.41%	Chicago $5/mo.; others $1.50/mo
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	20.91%
Indiana
State sales tax	7.00%	Access and intrastate
Utility receipts tax	1.40%	Same base as sales tax
Wireless 911	2.59%	$1.00 per month
State USF	0.69%	1.09% times FCC safe harbor
PUC fee	0.12%	Statutory max 0.15%
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	11.79%
Iowa
State sales tax	6.00%
Local option sales taxes	0.50%	Avg. of Cedar Rapids (1%) & Des Moines (0%)
Wireless 911	2.59%	$1.00 per month
Dual Party Relay Service fee	0.08%	$0.03 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	9.16%
Kansas
State sales tax	6.50%	Intrastate & interstate
Local option sales taxes	1.83%	Avg. of Wichita (1.0%) & Topeka (2.65%)
USF	4.72%	7.50% x FCC safe harbor
Wireless 911	1.55%	$.60 per month per line
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	14.59%
Kentucky
State sales tax	6.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
School utility gross receipts	1.50%	Avg Frankfort (3%) and Lousiville (0%)
Kentucky USF	0.23%	$.09 per month
Kentucky TAP & TRS	0.08%	TAP: $0.02 and TRS: $0.01
Wireless 911	1.81%	$.70 / month
Communications gross receipts tax	1.30%	Access, interstate and intrastate
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	10.92%
Louisiana
State sales tax	4.45%	Intrastate rate
Wireless 911	2.72%	New Orleans $1.25/mo.; Baton Rouge $.85/mo.
State USF	3.34%	May vary by carrier
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	10.50%
Maine
State service provider tax	6.00%	Intrastate
911 fee	1.16%	$.45 per month
Maine USF	1.32%	2.1% times FCC safe harbor
MTEAF	0.44%	0.7% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.93%
Maryland
State sales tax	6.00%
Local telecom excise	5.17%	$4.00 per month in Baltimore; no tax in Annapolis
State 911	0.65%	$.25 per month
County 911	1.94%	$.75 per month in all counties
State USF	0.13%	$0.05 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	13.89%
Massachusetts
State sales tax	6.25%	Interstate and intrastate
Wireless 911	2.59%	$1.00 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.84%
Michigan
State sales tax	6.00%	Interstate and intrastate
State wireless 911	0.65%	$.25 per month
County wireless 911	1.09%	Detroit $.42; Lansing $.42
Intrastate toll assessment	0.62%	.98% of intrastate charges
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.35%
Minnesota
State sales tax	6.88%	Interstate and intrastate
Local sales tax	1.08%	Minneapolis (1.15%) and St. Paul (1.0%)
911	2.46%	$.95 per month
Telecom access MN fund	0.13%	$0.05 per line per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	10.54%
Mississippi
State sales tax	7.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Wireless 911	2.59%	$1.00 per month per line
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	9.59%
Missouri
State sales tax	4.23%	Access and intrastate
Local sales taxes	4.06%	Avg. Jefferson City (3.5%) & Kansas City (4.625%)
Local business license tax	6.50%	Jefferson City (7%); Kansas City (6% residential)
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	14.79%
Montana
Telecom excise tax	3.75%	Access, interstate and intrastate
911 & E911 tax	2.59%	$1.00 per number per month
TDD tax	0.26%	$.10 per number per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	6.60%
Nebraska
State sales tax	5.50%	Access & intrastate
Local sales tax	1.63%	Lincoln (1.75%) and Omaha (1.5%)
City business and occupation tax	6.13%	Avg. of Omaha (6.25%) & Lincoln (6.0%)
State USF	4.37%	6.95% times FCC safe harbor
Wireless 911	1.16%	$.45 per month
TRS	0.05%	$.02 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	18.84%
Nevada
Local franchise / gross receipts	1.94%	5% of first $15 intrastate revenues
Local 911 tax	1.10%	Washoe County = $.85 / month; Clark County no tax
State deaf relay charge	0.16%	$.06 per access line
Nevada USF	0.07%	0.11% times FCC Safe Harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	3.27%
New Hampshire
Communication services tax	7.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
911 tax	1.94%	$.75 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.94%
New Jersey
State sales tax	6.63%
Wireless 911	2.33%	$.90 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.95%
New Mexico
State gross receipts (sales) tax	5.13%	5.125% intrastate; 4.25% interstate
City and county gross receipts tax	3.03%	Avg. Santa Fe (3.3125%) & Albuquerque (2.75%)
Wireless 911	1.32%	$.51 per month
TRS surcharge	0.21%	0.33% times FCC safe harbor
State USF	3.81%	6.06% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	13.49%
New York
State sales tax	4.00%	Intrastate and monthly access
Local sales taxes	4.25%	NYC 4.5%; Albany 4%
MCTD sales tax	0.19%	NYC 0.375%; Albany 0%
State excise tax (186e)	2.90%	Mobile telecom service — includes interstate
MCTD excise/surcharge (186c)	0.36%	NYC & surrounding counties – .72%; Albany 0%
Local utility gross receipts tax	1.49%	NYC — 84% of 2.35%; Albany 1%
State wireless 911	3.10%	$1.20 per month
Local wireless 911	0.78%	$.30 per month — NYC & most counties
School district utility sales tax	1.50%	Albany 3%; NYC no tax
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	18.56%
North Carolina
State sales tax	7.00%	Statewide combined rate includes local taxes
Wireless 911	1.68%	$.65 per month
TRS Charge	0.21%	$.08 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.89%
North Dakota
State sales tax	5.00%	Access and intrastate
Local sales taxes	2.00%	Avg Fargo (2.5%) & Bismarck (1.5%)
State gross receipts tax	2.50%	Interstate and intrastate
Statewide Interoperable Radio Network Tax	1.29%	$0.50 per line per month
Local 911 tax	3.23%	$1.00 Bismarck; $1.50 Fargo
TRS	0.10%	Up to $.11/mo — currently $.04
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	14.13%
Ohio
State sales tax	5.75%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales taxes	2.00%	Columbus (1.75%) and Cleveland (2.25%)
Regulatory fee	0.15%	Intrastate Gross Revenues
State/local wireless 911	0.65%	$.25 per month per phone number
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.55%
Oklahoma
State sales tax	4.50%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales taxes	4.07%	Avg. of OK City (4.125%) & Tulsa (4.017%)
Local 911	1.94%	$.75 per month in OK City and Tulsa
USF	0.75%	1.2% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	11.27%
Oregon
Local utililty tax	0.00%	No tax on wireless in Portland or Salem
911 tax	1.94%	$.75 per month
RSPF Surcharge	0.16%	$0.06 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	2.10%
Pennsylvania
State sales tax	6.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
State gross receipts tax	5.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales tax	1.00%	Philadephia 2%; Harrisburg 0%
Statewide wireless 911	4.27%	$1.65 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	16.27%
Puerto Rico
IVU (Sales Tax)	11.50%
911 fee	1.29%	$.50 per line
USF	0.87%	1.39% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	13.67%
Rhode Island
State sales tax	7.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Gross receipts tax	5.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
911 fee	2.59%	$1.00 per month
Additional wireless 911 fee	0.67%	$.26 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	15.26%
South Carolina
State sales tax	6.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales tax	2.50%	Avg. of Charleston (3%) and Columbia (2%)
Municipal license tax	1.00%	Charleston (1.0%) and Columbia (1.0%)
Dual party relay charge	0.16%	$.06 per line per month
State USF	1.30%	2.07% times FCC safe harbor
911 tax	1.60%	$.62 / month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	12.56%
South Dakota
State sales tax	4.50%	Access, interstate and intrastate
State gross receipts tax	4.00%
Local option sales tax	2.00%	Avg. of Pierre (2.0%) and Sioux Falls (2.0%)
911 excise	3.23%	$1.25 per month
TRS fee	0.39%	$.15 per month by statute
PUC fee	0.09%	.15% of intrastate receipts
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	14.22%
Tennessee
State sales tax	7.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales tax	2.50%	Statewide local rate for intrastate
911 tax	3.00%	$1.16 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	12.50%
Texas
State sales tax	6.25%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales tax	2.00%	Austin (2.0%) & Houston (2.0%)
Wireless 911 tax	1.29%	$.50 per month per line
Texas USF	2.08%	3.3% times FCC safe harbor
911 Equalization surcharge	0.16%	$.06 per line
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	11.77%
Utah
State sales tax	4.70%	Access and intrastate
Local sales taxes	2.15%	Avg. of Salt Lake City (2.15%) and Provo (2.15%)
Local utility wireless	3.50%	Levied at 3.5% max. in SLC and Provo
State 911 service charges	2.07%	$.80 per month
State Radio Network charge	1.35%	$.52 per month
State USF	0.93%	$0.36 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	14.70%
Vermont
State sales tax	6.00%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales tax	0.50%	Avg. of Montpelier (0%) and Burlington (1%)
State 911/USF	2.00%	Funds 911 and other programs
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.50%
Virginia
State communications sales tax	5.00%	CST
Wireless 911	1.94%	$.75 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	6.94%
Washington
State sales tax	6.50%	Access, interstate and intrastate
Local sales taxes	2.95%	Olympia (2.3%) & Seattle (3.6%) average
B&O / Utility Franchise — local	7.50%	Olympia (9%) & Seattle (6%) average
911 — state	0.65%	$.25 per month
911 — local	1.81%	$.70 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	19.41%
West Virginia
State sales tax	0.00%	No sales tax on wireless
Wireless 911	8.64%	$3.34 per month
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.64%
Wisconsin
State sales tax	5.00%	Access, intrastate and interstate
Local sales tax	0.55%	Avg. of Milwaukee (0.6%) & Madison (0.5%)
Police and Fire Protection Fee	1.94%	$.75 per month
State USF	1.50%	2.38% times FCC safe harbor
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.99%
Wyoming
State sales tax	4.00%	Access and intrastate
Local sales tax	1.50%	Avg. of Cheyenne (2%) and Casper (1%)
TRS	0.23%	Up to $.25/month — $.09 currently
USF	1.07%	1.7% times FCC safe harbor
911 tax	1.94%	$.75 per month in Cheyenne and Casper
TOTAL TRANSACTION TAX	8.74%
ARPU= $38.66
FCC Safe Harbor = 37.1%*

[1] Stephen J. Blumberg and Julian V. Luke, “Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July–December 2017,” National Center for Health Statistics, June 2018, 1-3, https://www. cdc. gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201806.pdf.

[2] These estimates are calculated by applying the rates of percentage-based taxes in each state by the average monthly bill after excluding the estimated 45 percent of the average monthly bill representing internet access. For flat rate per-line impositions, the per-line rate is multiplied by the estimated number of postpaid wireless lines.

[3] Missouri enacted HB1456 in 2018 that authorizes certain cities and counties to impose wireless 911 fees on or after January 1, 2019 if approved by voters.

[4] Federal Communications Commission, “Ninth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges for the Period January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016,” Dec. 29, 2017, file:///C:/Users/RachelSW/Downloads/9th_annual_911_fee_report. pdf.

[6] Stephen J. Blumberg, and Julian V. Luke, “Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July–December 2017,” 2-3.

[8] International Chamber of Commerce, “ICC Discussion Paper on the Adverse Effects of Discriminatory Taxes on Telecommunications Service,” 2.

[9] Dr. Robert F. Roche and Shae Gardner, “ Wireless Industry Indices Report: 2018,” CTIA, July 2018, 40.

[10] For the purposes of this report, the FCC safe harbor percentage is used. This allows for consistent multiyear comparisons of taxes, fees, and surcharges.

Income Tax Forms

Friday, September 15, 2017

Income Tax Forms Utility

D-U1A City Of Detroit 2006 Utility Users Tax Annual Return

D-U1A City of Detroit Utility Users Tax Annual Return 2006 Of $,, . fice Use Only Federal Identification Number Account ID. NAICS Code Name Address (Number, Street or Rural Route) . Fetch Document

How To Use ITR Java Utilities - Incometaxindiaefiling. gov. in

ITR Java Utility How to use ITR Java Utilities ITR utilities are developed using JAVA technology and effort has been made to make it user friendly, simpler and faster preparation of tax returns. This utility can run on operating systems like Windows 7.0 or above, latest Linux and Mac OS 10.10 . Read Document

Economic Basics For Beginners In Economics

Economic Information for Beginners. How Good Intentions Lead to Crushing Marginal Tax Rates on the Working Should Income Tax Rates Depend on Lifetime Earnings? Payroll Tax Reduction - One Approach to a Carbon Tax ; Do Richer People Pay a Higher Proportion of Tax Under a Flat Tax? Gas Tax. Read Article

Municipal Bond - Wikipedia

Revenue bonds promise repayment from a specified stream of future income, such as income generated by a water utility from payments by customers. is the statutory provision that excludes interest on municipal bonds from federal income tax. As of 2004, other rules, however, such as. Read Article

Talk:Income Tax In The United States/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

Talk:Income tax in the United States/Archive 1. This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new and the fact that the marginal utility of income is a function of present and past income. Read Article

D-U1 CITY OF DETROIT UTILITY USERS TAX

D-U1 CITY OF DETROIT UTILITY USERS TAX f O y l n O e s U e c i f ST AMP DLN HERE Income Tax Division 46501, P. O. Box 67000, Detroit, Information concerning Forms D-U1, D-U1A or the Utility Users Tax Ordinance may be obtained by calling. Fetch This Document

D-U1A City Of Detroit 2014 Utility Users Tax Annual Return.

D-U1A City of Detroit Utility Users Tax Annual Return 2014 f O y l n O e s U e c i f $ , , . Federal Identification Number Account ID. NAICS Code. View This Document

Form IT-225-I:2014:Instructions For Form IT-225 New York.

Instructions for Form IT-225 New York State Modifications IT-225-I Schedule A chart starting on page 13 for information on which forms the modifications apply to. Form IT-203 filers that had a higher adjusted basis for New York State income tax. Retrieve Here

GGD-91-51 Public Utilities: Disposition Of Excess Deferred Taxes

PUBLIC UTILITIES Disposition of Excess Deferred Taxes / -._ - ‘ .__ ‘ -1 -1, -- were created when this act reduced the maximum corporate income tax a utility’ s income taxes payable in a period may. View Full Source

Instructions For Form NYC-2

See the instructions to those forms. An S Corporation may not file this return. CORPORATION DEFINED Any entity that is an association taxable as a corporation for federal income tax purposes pursuant to IRC §7701(a)(3) is Utility Tax. The amount of gross in - . Return Document

Taxation In New Mexico - Wikipedia

Taxation in New Mexico takes several different forms. The principal taxes levied in the U. S. state of New Mexico include state income tax on personal and corporate income, a state gross receipts tax, gross receipts taxes in local jurisdictions, state and local property taxes, and several taxes. Read Article

ITR-5, ITR-6 & ITR-7 | Income Tax Return Forms | AY-16-17 .

HEY GUYS. This video talks about Income Tax Return Forms ITR-5, ITR-6 and ITR-7. ITR-5 is used by BOI, AJP, Firm, LLP, Co-operative Society and Local Auth. View Video

How To Fill Up Deducted Year In TDS Schedule 2 Of Tax Return.

How to fill up Deducted year in TDS schedule 2 of tax Return? #makeknowledgefree What should I write against column "Deducted Year" of Sch TDS2 of Income Ta. View Video

Publication 570 Pdf - IRS Tax Forms

Related to Publication 570, such as legislation enacted after it was published, go to www. irs ally have a federal income tax return filing obli-gation, the NIIT generally does not directly ap - Tax Forms and Publications 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, IR-6526 . Access Content

CITY INCOME TAX ACT - Michigan

CITY INCOME TAX ACT forms a lighting authority shall deposit an amount equal to the sum of the revenue collected from 0.2% of the authority have been fully paid and revenue is no longer being pledged from taxes levied under the city utility users tax act, 1990 PA 100, . Access Content

Form URT-1 2012 Indiana Utility Receipts Tax Return

Utility Receipts Tax Due for the Taxable Year: Multiply the amount on line 15 by 1.4% (.014) The tax is an income tax imposed at a rate of 1.4 percent on the taxable gross receipts described below. All entities are subject to the tax if their taxable gross. View Document

S. No. Form Number Description - E-Filing Home Page, Income .

Online Forms (Other than ITRs) available for e-Filing User can file the forms post login by going NO 1 Statement of Specified Services - Equalisation levy Rules, 2016 2 FORM NO 3 Appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Equalisation levy Rules, 2016 . Read More

Opinion | What Real Tax Reform Could Be

New forms of taxation are also needed. Even prominent Republicansand Henry Paulson Jr. support a carbon tax imposed on emissions to reduce greenhouse gases. Theirs would pass the proceeds. Read News

Instructions For SAHAJ Income Tax Return AY 2016-17 General.

Instructions for SAHAJ Income Tax Return AY 2016-17 General Instructions These instructions are guidelines for filling the particulars in this Return Form. . Get Document

Excel 2007 Options Button - About. com Tech

Since there is no longer a tool's menu, or even a tool's tab on the Ribbon, you have to look elsewhere for the Excel Options feature in Excel 2007. . Read Article

CITY OF DETROIT INCOME TAX

CITY OF DETROIT INCOME TAX MAIL TO: CITY OF DETROIT FINANCE DEPARTMENT DU1 UTILITY USERS TAX FORM DU1A UTILITY USERS TAX City of Detroit Income T ax forms may be picked up FREE OF CHARGE from our office located in the CA YMC, . Access This Document

PA-20 UTILITY PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION UPDATE

If forms have been previously submitted to DRA, indicate date of submission: UTILITY PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION UPDATE State Income Tax Return, with schedules Federal Income Tax Return, with schedules STEP 11 . View This Document

Form N-342, 2013, Renewable Energy Technologies Income Tax .

Enter the amount of consumer incentive premiums, costs used for other credits, and utility, Carryover of unused renewable energy technologies income tax credit (for systems Forms 2016 Created Date: 12/8 . Fetch Content

Domestic Utility Refund Claims - Missouri

Domestic Utility Refund Claims Utility services through a single or master meter for residential apartments, to be for domestic use and are exempt from sales tax unless a city or county imposes a local sales tax on utilities at the location of the facility. . Return Doc

Foreign Earned Income Tax Worksheet - Form 1040 . - Irs. gov

Experienced in preparing their own tax returns. There are no income limitations. It supports only federal tax forms. Free e - le Help Available Nationwide Do Your Taxes for Free See How To Get Tax Help near the end of these instructions for additional information or visit IRS. gov. View This Document

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS - Puc. texas. gov

Schedule III—Federal Income Taxes This report form is prescribed for the use of telephone utilities regulated by the Public Utility Commission of Texas. If an amount is included in the Federal income tax calculation, supporting. Access Doc

Kentucky Tax Registration Application And Instructions

Kentucky Tax Registration Application and Instructions Utility Gross Receipts License Tax Account Telecommunications Tax Account Consumers ’ Use Tax Account Corporation Income Tax Account Limited Liability Entity Tax Account. Fetch Document

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Instructions For Form NYC.

Instructions for Form NYC-204 to only the New York City Utility Tax. The amount of gross income subject to tax has been amended to conform to the Federal Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act of 2000. In addition, for tax years beginning on and after August 1, . Read Content