487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007), 06-5523, Directv, Inc. v. Treesh

Docket Nº:06-5523.
Citation:487 F.3d 471
Party Name:DIRECTV, INC. and Echostar Satellite L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mark TREESH, Commissioner for the Department of Revenue for the State of Kentucky, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:May 31, 2007
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 471

487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007)

DIRECTV, INC. and Echostar Satellite L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Mark TREESH, Commissioner for the Department of Revenue for the State of Kentucky, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-5523.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 31, 2007

Argued: January 23, 2007

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort. No. 05-00024-Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.

Page 472

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 473

ARGUED:

Pantelis Michalopoulos, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Douglas M. Dowell, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR REVENUE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF:

Pantelis Michalopoulos, Lincoln L. Davies, Mark F. Horning, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Washington, D.C., Kenneth S. Handmaker, Bradley E. Cunningham, MIDDLETON REUTLINGER, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants.

Douglas M. Dowell, Laura M. Ferguson, OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR REVENUE, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Burt A. Braverman, Timothy P. Tobin, COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, Washington, D.C., Jackson W. White, Lexington, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.

Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; and MERRITT and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

BOGGS, Chief Judge.

Directv, Inc. and Echostar Satellite L.L.C., collectively "the satellite companies," appeal from the district court's dismissal of their claims against Mark Treesh, the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue for the state of Kentucky. The satellite companies seek a permanent injunction against certain provisions recently added to Kentucky's revenue statutes that afford cable television operators credits and other relief from state taxes assessed against both cable companies and the satellite companies. The satellite companies contend that these credits unconstitutionally discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution. Because we find no constitutional violation, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

a. The Satellite and Cable Companies

The satellite companies provide multi-channel video programming to subscribers by means of satellites stationed above the Earth. The federal government auctioned the right to transmit on certain electromagnetic frequencies, and the satellite companies paid more than $700 million for these rights. The satellite companies allege that they have further invested more than $1 billion in building, insuring, and launching their satellites. Subscribers in Kentucky receive the signals from these satellites by means of small satellite dishes mounted on or near their houses. According to their complaint, the satellite companies "employ no infrastructure in the State

Page 474

to transmit their signal directly to the subscriber and do not use public rights-of-way in providing service." The district court noted, however, that according to the amicus curiae brief of the Kentucky Cable Television Association ("KCTA"), the satellite companies do have "local receiving facilities" on the ground in Kentucky, which receive the signals of local broadcast stations and include them in their offerings with the channels sent by satellite. In their complaint, the satellite companies state that Directv has two sales employees in Kentucky and that EchoStar has six sales employees in Kentucky. The district court noted that, according to the KCTA, the satellite companies employ a "legion" of local contractors in Kentucky to sell their services and receiving dishes.

Cable companies, on the other hand, provide multi-channel video programming by means of cable networks located in Kentucky. Cable systems receive the programming that they retransmit to subscribers at local cable headends. The cable headends then transmit the programming to Kentucky subscribers by way of cables laid in trenches in or along roads or hung on utility poles in the state and connected to the subscribers' television sets and set-top boxes. In their complaint, the satellite companies assert that cable companies must obtain local government permission to use roads and other rights-of-way in order to lay or string cable connecting their local distribution facilities to the subscribers' homes. Local governments typically provide this permission by franchise agreements and permits granted to the cable companies. The satellite companies assert that in return for permission to use public rights-of-way, the cable companies pay a franchise fee to the applicable local government that is typically five percent of gross revenue within the franchise area. The satellite companies characterize the franchise fee as "compensation to the local government for valuable rights granted by the franchise." The satellite companies allege that cable operators have a "strong local presence in Kentucky due to the employment of numerous Kentucky residents and the location of numerous offices and facilities within the state to provide service." Finally, the satellite companies allege that when a customer wishes to purchase a subscription to multi-channel television service, there are basically only two choices: cable or satellite.

b. The Changes to Kentucky's Tax Law

In March 2005, Kentucky amended its tax laws. See 2005 Ky. Acts 168, Ky. H.B. No. 272, 2005 Regular Session (2005) (the "2005 amendments") (relevant provisions codified at various sections of Chapter 136 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes).

Prior to the 2005 Amendments, neither the cable companies nor the satellite companies were required to pay Kentucky state sales tax. In addition, pursuant to § 602(a) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the satellite companies, but not the cable companies, were and are exempt from all local taxes and fees. Pub.L. No. 104-104, Title VI, § 602(a), 110 Stat. 144(a)(1996) (reprinted at 47 U.S.C. § 152, historical and statutory notes). Nevertheless, the Telecommunications Act explicitly reserves to states the powers the states themselves had to tax satellite companies. Ibid. Meanwhile, as stated above, the cable companies paid franchise fees to local governments.

The Kentucky legislature passed the 2005 Amendments in order to provide "a fair, efficient, and uniform method for taxing communications services sold" in Kentucky and to simplify "an existing system that includes a myriad of levies, fees, and

Page 475

rates imposed at all levels of government." KRS § 136.600(1), (3). The 2005 amendments became effective on January 1, 2006.

Section 90 of the 2005 Amendments imposes an excise tax on the retail purchase of multichannel video programming service provided to a person whose place of primary use is in the state. KRS § 136.604(1). The amendments define "multichannel video programming service" as "cable service and satellite broadcast and wireless cable service." Id. § 136.602(8). The excise tax is 3% of the sales price charged for the service. Id. § 136.604(2). Section 96 of the 2005 Amendments imposes a 2.4% tax on a multichannel video programming service provider's gross revenues from service provided to people in Kentucky. Id. § 136.616(1), (2)(a). Together, these provisions effectively impose a 5.4% tax on total charges for either cable or satellite.

Section 112 of the 2005 Amendments establishes a gross revenues and excise tax fund. KRS § 136.648(1). All revenues from the taxes described above are to be deposited into this fund. The money in the fund is then to be allocated among the state and its political subdivisions, school districts, and special districts. Id. § 136.648(3). Under Section 113 of the 2005 Amendments, every "political subdivision, school district, special district, and sheriff's department" must certify to the Revenue Cabinet the total local franchise fees it collected from multichannel video programming service providers in fiscal year 2005. Id. § 136.650(1). This certified amount is then used to determine the monthly portion of the gross revenues and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP