Fairpoint Sues New Hampshire Towns Over Pole Tax
Insists Paying Property Taxes Unconstitutional
Until last year, telephone poles and conduits across New Hampshire were exempt from local property taxes -- while identical poles and conduits owned by electric utilities were taxed. The tax exemptions for telcos were originally doled out to help spur deployment of services, something locals say regional incumbents Verizon, and now Fairpoint, consistently failed at. As a result, when the tax exemption ran out in July 2010, the state voted not to reinstate it. Fairpoint Communications is now suing 100 communities
, claiming that the taxes they'll have to pay on the poles are unconstitutional and akin to double taxation:
FairPoint's contention has always been that since the company pays the state's telecommunications tax, allowing its poles to also be taxed by communities constitutes double taxation. However, proponents of the exemption repeal contend that since electric utility poles were already being taxed by communities, it is unfair not to allow them to tax FairPoint's poles.
Fairpoint has already gotten regulatory approval to pass the cost of the taxes on to customers if their lawsuit fails.
| |marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
Saint Louis, MO
Re: Double taxed?
said by Wilsdom:No, it's actually their customers' employers who are being taxed.
Add pole tax to the list, because it's customers who will be paying. Might hurt Fairpoint's business a little, but it's really just a backdoor tax on New Hampshire residents.
No wait, it's their customers' employers' customers. No wait, that's wrong too. It's their customers' employers' customers' employers. That's it. No wait....
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
Geographic Information Science researcher
Re: If I Had a Nickel...
said by rradina:Would not surprise me. D.C. does. Considering the constant tension between D.C., MD, and VA's agencies, it would not surprise me one bit to learn that Virginia does it. In D.C., if your car is spotted more than once in a 180-day period, a nice notice is left on your car to get registered, get a R.O.S.A. exemption, get one of two 15-day visitor parking permits (only 2 max per year), or get out.
Did you have to buy a city parking sticker or something? If not and you didn't license it in the state (assuming that's what you meant by register), how did they know? Do they have an enforcer trolling the neighborhood logging out-of-state plates and after they see the same plate for so long, they send a bill?
Re: If I Had a Nickel...
said by rradina:Don't see me arguing. Want to see it in action? Walk through Georgetown on a Saturday if you're ever in D.C..
And the cost of this enforcement is outweighed by the tax revenue it generates? If camera's are doing the work in an Orwellian fashion, I can see it more than paying for itself. However, if some Joe's specific job is to catalog and determine violations, I'd have to see the numbers to understand how that's a good use of tax dollars. It seems more efficient to drop the personal property tax and get the revenue somewhere else that's easily deterministic and doesn't require enforcement trolls.
| |NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind awayPremium,MVMReviews:
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
Re: Thats the problem
said by OSUGoose:The regulatory permission was just a pro forma(?) way to itemize the tax on the customer bill. Otherwise they would just have hidden it in a general price hike.
"Fairpoint has already gotten regulatory approval to pass the cost of the taxes on to customers if their lawsuit fails."
The regulators needed to say no, you have to eat this.
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum