Phone excise tax abolished

tw1164

Diamond Member
Dec 8, 1999
3,995
0
76
Text

U.S. to give refunds for abolished phone tax
By Ken Belson The New York Times

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 2006


Bowing to changes in technology and pressure from taxpayers and phone companies, the U.S. Treasury Department said it would scrap the 108-year- old federal excise tax on long-distance phone calls. The move will bring consumers and businesses about $15 billion in refunds on tax returns next year.

The decision announced Thursday, which applies to cellphones and Internet phone services as well as some land lines, follows a series of court reversals for the government. Large businesses had successfully sued the Internal Revenue Service to recoup the taxes they paid. Phone companies also wanted the tax abolished to relieve them of having to collect it.

Originally a luxury tax to help pay for the Spanish-American War, the 3 percent surcharge had been calculated based on the length of the call and the distance of the connection. But as unlimited long-distance calling plans became commonplace, and the tax was applied to a flat monthly fee, some taxpayers argued that the tax no longer applied to them because the duration and distance of a call were irrelevant.

Though the tax will still be levied on local phone service, the government will reimburse three years' worth of taxes on long-distance calls, including any plans that combine local and long- distance calling. Consumers, who pay about 40 percent of the taxes collected, typically pay about $18 a year in excise taxes if they have a long-distance service and a cellphone.

They will be able to file for a refund on their 2006 U.S. income tax returns.

"It's time to disconnect this tax and put it on the permanent do-not-call list," Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

The decision, he added, "marks the beginning of the end of an outdated, antiquated tax that has survived a century beyond its original purpose, and by now should have been ancient history."

The abolition of the tax, effective July 31, will cost the Treasury $5 billion annually in lost revenue in the next few years. With budget deficits soaring, the Treasury had been slow to scrap the tax. But several federal courts ruled in recent years that it was no longer applicable to customers with unlimited long-distance plans.

The Internal Revenue Service has refunded hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to companies including OfficeMax and the American Bankers Insurance Group based on those court decisions.

While the courts said some businesses should get refunds, Congress had not repealed the tax, so the IRS was compelled to continue collecting it. This created a peculiar situation in which taxpayers who won refunds still had to pay the tax in subsequent years and then apply for another refund.

Bowing to changes in technology and pressure from taxpayers and phone companies, the U.S. Treasury Department said it would scrap the 108-year- old federal excise tax on long-distance phone calls. The move will bring consumers and businesses about $15 billion in refunds on tax returns next year.

The decision announced Thursday, which applies to cellphones and Internet phone services as well as some land lines, follows a series of court reversals for the government. Large businesses had successfully sued the Internal Revenue Service to recoup the taxes they paid. Phone companies also wanted the tax abolished to relieve them of having to collect it.

Originally a luxury tax to help pay for the Spanish-American War, the 3 percent surcharge had been calculated based on the length of the call and the distance of the connection. But as unlimited long-distance calling plans became commonplace, and the tax was applied to a flat monthly fee, some taxpayers argued that the tax no longer applied to them because the duration and distance of a call were irrelevant.

Though the tax will still be levied on local phone service, the government will reimburse three years' worth of taxes on long-distance calls, including any plans that combine local and long- distance calling. Consumers, who pay about 40 percent of the taxes collected, typically pay about $18 a year in excise taxes if they have a long-distance service and a cellphone.

They will be able to file for a refund on their 2006 U.S. income tax returns.

"It's time to disconnect this tax and put it on the permanent do-not-call list," Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

The decision, he added, "marks the beginning of the end of an outdated, antiquated tax that has survived a century beyond its original purpose, and by now should have been ancient history."

The abolition of the tax, effective July 31, will cost the Treasury $5 billion annually in lost revenue in the next few years. With budget deficits soaring, the Treasury had been slow to scrap the tax. But several federal courts ruled in recent years that it was no longer applicable to customers with unlimited long-distance plans.

The Internal Revenue Service has refunded hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to companies including OfficeMax and the American Bankers Insurance Group based on those court decisions.

While the courts said some businesses should get refunds, Congress had not repealed the tax, so the IRS was compelled to continue collecting it. This created a peculiar situation in which taxpayers who won refunds still had to pay the tax in subsequent years and then apply for another refund.

I have to remember not to throw out my phone bills, so I can get a refund.

 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Episodes like this show that you have to pry any taxes from the govt's hands like a screaming baby. For all the political blustering on the issue, govt will never grow smaller. Dems will spend it and tax to pay, Reps will spend it and cut taxes just to heap ot on the debt load. Taxpayer is damned either way.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its a tax and somewhat of a luxury tax at that. While I may be glad to see it gone, its even worse to put the missing tax revenues onto the national debt.

Maybe our lawmakers could try cutting spending instead---and to marry another thread---government spying on all long distance calls---how much is that program costing
us---and who in the history of the world has it caught?---I may not feel safer yet but I sure feel ripped off.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
WoooHooooo...another 46 billion in cuts. And Snow is already touting trickle down into the economy to make up the lost revenues, forgetting that we already have a yearly deficit of nearly 400 billion to cover part of first.

Since so many people have cell phones and don't pay long distance, who eactly is getting this 46 billion break anyway?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Those that do not use cell phones for long distance calls.

The problem will be how will the refund request be implimented?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Those that do not use cell phones for long distance calls.

The problem will be how will the refund request be implimented?

Exactly.

All this means is more profits for all the phone Companies.

Consumers will still pay the same and more because the charges continue to rise.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Those that do not use cell phones for long distance calls.

The problem will be how will the refund request be implimented?

More than likely, business and corporations will receive the biggest chunk of the money since they still use land lines for most of their long distance calling and do lots of it.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Those that do not use cell phones for long distance calls.

The problem will be how will the refund request be implimented?

More than likely, business and corporations will receive the biggest chunk of the money since they still use land lines for most of their long distance calling and do lots of it.

Undoubtedly, whatever little the consumer gets will likely be treated as income, so the government will get it right back in taxes

Whoohoo!