Appeals Court Tells Minnesota, Yet Again, That It Cannot Tax VoIP
from the how-many-times-must-you-be-told? dept
Regulators in Minnesota are nothing if not persistent. In 2003, government officials were upset that they were losing tax revenue as people switched from telephone services to VoIP services like Vonage. While telecom services are clearly regulated and have a variety of tax requirements, VoIP as an internet service, is not subject to taxation. Of course, regulators who want tax dollars don't want to pay attention to the reasons for this and prefer the "looks like a duck" test. Thus, Minnesota started telling VoIP providers like Vonage that they needed to pay telco taxes despite not being a telco. Since the laws are pretty clear that internet services are not to be taxed, Minnesota's regulators were told by a judge to take a hike. The FCC followed this up by reminding Minnesota that states have no right to regulate VoIP -- and that, if anyone can, it's only the federal government. Minnesota appealed this and an Appeals Court again told Minnesota it cannot tax VoIP. In 2005, Minnesota appealed again, asking for the right to tax VoIP systems, and now a federal appeals court has upheld the original FCC ruling saying that states cannot tax VoIP. Given nearly four years of Minnesota regulators being slapped down over this issue again and again and again and again... somehow we think that they're not about to give up just yet. Minnesota has the option of appealing to the full 8th Circuit Appeals Court (rather than just the 3-judge panel) or jumping straight to the Supreme Court. You get the feeling that at some point, this will end up at the Supreme Court level.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait
Even though it comes in conjunction with your service, if you really thought about it, you're not paying for it at all. If you really want to screw with your ISP, call them up and harass them for a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money grubbers- you're damn right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: money grubbers- you're damn right
>>and this dosen't suprise me. The liberal
>>politicians in my state
Umm, the governor of MN is a Republican, and it's his administration that has been pushing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
same regulators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUT
logical and lawful for a change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for not selling cars on Sunday, the reason you can't buy a car on Sunday is because you can't transfer title on Sunday, because the office is closed. Can't sell a house or a boat (or anything else that has a title) on Sunday either. The no booze on Sunday deal? I just don't get that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling Cars on Sunday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting idea
They are claiming the right to tax our ability to talk over a distance, regardless of the underlying technology. Nobody likes paying taxes, but at least they get it enough to see that what is important is the service provided -- audible communication -- and not analog versus digital signaling.
Now if we could get the rest of the old world to see that they need to focus on the real business they are in, we could get some rational laws around copyrights, patents, file transfers, entertainment costs, and many other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tip of the iceberg
If electric cars or high milage hybrids really become the norm, where do they
get revenue from what used to be the gas tax? We are the second highest taxed state in the union, so don't be surprised if our great legislature finds a new way to tax things on that 'new fangled internet thing'.
As for no liquor on sundays, can't figure that one out either, why do we sell 3.2 beer?
Want an example of crazy state legislators? We have a gal that proposed a law allowing illegal immagrants the right to vote. Yes, you read this right. She also in a previous year was proposing that 12 year olds amnd upbe allowed to vote for school board members.
I tell ya its crazy up here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's paying?
On the other hand, maybe Vonage should start *receiving* money from Minnesota to pay their legal fess to respond to these appeals. But, then how would Minnesota raise money? Ah, yes, tax something else... maybe something the FCC will allow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]