State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 June 2017
• Docket Number: Docket: Ken–16–358
• Citation: 164 A.3d 952
• Parties: STATE TAX ASSESSOR v. MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

164 A.3d 952

STATE TAX ASSESSOR

v.MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.

Docket: Ken–16–358

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: May 12, 2017

Decided: June 15, 2017

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Kimberly L. Patwardhan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellant State Tax Assessor

Jonathan M. Dunitz, Esq., Verrill Dana LLP, Portland, and Cindy B. Gonzales, Esq. (orally), Verizon Corp. Resources Group, LLC, Irving, Texas, for appellee MCI Communications Services, Inc.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

GORMAN, J.

[¶ 1] The State Tax Assessor appeals from the entry of a summary judgment in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Marden, J. ) in favor of MCI Communications Services, Inc. (MCI) on an appeal by the Assessor of a decision vacating the imposition of the state service provider tax on certain charges collected by MCI. The court concluded that those charges were part of the sale of interstate or international telecommunications services and were therefore excluded or exempt from taxation. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] This appeal concerns two types of surcharges—property tax recovery charges (PTRCs) and carrier cost recovery charges (CCRCs)—that MCI, a telecommunications service provider of long distance telephone service in Maine, imposed upon its Maine customers in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The case was presented to the Superior Court through joint stipulations of facts and stipulated exhibits. As stipulated, the following facts are not in dispute. MCI imposed PTRCs on its customers to recover a percentage of the local and state taxes that it paid on real and tangible personal property used to provide international, interstate, and intrastate telecommunications services. MCI imposed CCRCs on its customers to recover a percentage of the expenses that it paid to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and third party administrators for regulatory fees.¹ MCI determined the rate of the PTRC and CCRC surcharges by comparing the total expenses to be recovered to the total eligible revenue (i.e., revenue from interstate and international telecommunications services) against which the surcharges were to be recovered, with the intention of recovering only a portion of the total expenses paid. MCI collected these charges only from its customers with international and interstate services.

[¶ 3] In January of 2011, Maine Revenue Services (MRS) notified MCI of its intent to audit MCI for the period of March 1, 2008, to December 31, 2010. As a result of the audit, MRS determined that PTRCs and CCRCs were subject to taxation. MRS assessed MCI $184,873.69, including interest, for those charges collected during the audit period.

[¶ 4] MCI sought reconsideration of the assessment, see 36 M.R.S. § 151 (2012),² which the MRS Audit Division denied. MCI next sought review of the assessment with the Maine Board of Tax Appeals. See 36 M.R.S. §§ 151(2)(E)–(G) ; 36 M.R.S. § 151–D (2012).³ By decision dated September 12, 2013, the Board vacated the imposition of the tax based on its determination that PTRCs and CCRCs were excluded or exempt from taxation because they were charged only in connection with sales of international and interstate services.

[¶ 5] On November 6, 2013, the Assessor filed a timely petition for review and de novo determination in the Superior Court. See 36 M.R.S. § 151–D(10)(I) (2016).⁴ As mentioned above, after they conducted discovery, the parties entered a joint stipulation of facts and exhibits and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a judgment dated June 30, 2016, the court denied the Assessor's motion and granted MCI's motion for a summary judgment. The Assessor timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 6] The Assessor contends that the PTRCs and CCRCs collected by MCI were subject to taxation because they were part of the taxable "sale price" of telecommunications services and were not excluded or exempt from taxation because they were not themselves "telecommunications services" nor were they international or interstate in nature. Because the Assessor appeals from the court's decision on cross-motions for summary judgment, "we review de novo whether there was no genuine issue of material fact and either party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor , 2016 ME 165, ¶ 2, 151 A.3d 497 ; see M.R. Civ. P. 56(c).

[¶ 7] In interpreting a tax statute, we look first to its plain meaning to give effect to the Legislature's intent. BCN Telecom , 2016 ME 165, ¶ 2, 151 A.3d 497. We "seek to avoid absurd, illogical or inconsistent results" and "will not read additional language into a statute" or treat words in a statute as "meaningless and superfluous." Blue Yonder, LLC v. State Tax Assessor , 2011 ME 49, ¶ 10, 17 A.3d 667 (quotation marks omitted). Further, we construe a tax statute "most strongly against the government and in the [taxpayer's] favor" and will not extend its reach "beyond the clear import of the language used." BCN Telecom , 2016 ME 165, ¶ 10, 151 A.3d 497 (quotations marks omitted). Statutory exemptions to taxes are construed narrowly, however, and we will not "extend[ ] [an exemption] ... to situations not clearly coming within the scope of the exemption provisions." Id. ¶ 13 (quotation marks omitted).

A. The "Sale Price" of Telecommunications Services

[¶ 8] We must first determine whether the charges at issue were part of the "sale price" of telecommunications services and were thus subject to the service provider tax before turning to whether the charges were excluded or exempt from that tax. The tax applied to "the value of ... [t]elecommunications services," and that value was "measured by the sale price." 36 M.R.S. §§ 2552(1)(E), (2) (2016).⁵ "Sale price" was defined, in relevant part, as "the total amount of consideration ... for which ... services are sold." 36 M.R.S. § 2551(15) (2016).⁶ A charge falls within the "sale price" if it is "part of the total compensation paid for telecommunications services." BCN Telecom , 2016 ME 165, ¶ 12, 151 A.3d 497.

[¶ 9] Like the charges at issue in BCN Telecom , PTRCs and CCRCs are part of "the total amount of consideration ... for which ... services are sold." 36 M.R.S. § 2551(15) ; see generally 2016 ME 165, 151 A.3d 497. Nothing in the stipulated facts or exhibits—which describe these charges as "surcharge[s] ... calculated as a percentage of charges for ... telecommunications services" that "appear[ed] on a customer's bill if the customer purchase[d] interstate or international telecommunications service"—distinguishes PTRCs and CCRCs "as anything other than [charges] for telecommunications services." BCN Telecom , 2016 ME 165, ¶ 12, 151 A.3d 497. Based on the plain language of the statute and "the clear import" of that language, id. ¶ 10, the PTRCs and CCRCs collected by MCI were therefore part of the "sale price" of telecommunications services and were subject to taxation unless they were otherwise excluded or exempted by the statute.

B. The Nature of PTRCs and CCRCs

[¶ 10] The Legislature amended the tax statute at issue in the instant case partway through the audit period. P.L. 2007, ch. 627, §§ 62–64, 74–75 (effective July 18, 2008) (codified at 36 M.R.S. §§ 2551, 2557 (2016) ). Before July 18, 2008, the statute excluded the "sale price" of international and interstate telecommunications services from taxation, see infra Part C, and, from that date forward, the statute exempted the "sales of" international and interstate telecommunications services from taxation, see infra Part D. Regardless of which version of the statute was in force, whether the PTRCs and CCRCs were subject to taxation depends upon whether they related only to the sale of international and interstate services or whether they were also charged in connection with intrastate services.

[¶ 11] There is no dispute that MCI imposed PTRCs and CCRCs only on customers who received international and interstate services and calculated them as a percentage of the international and interstate charges incurred by those customers.⁷ Despite those uncontroverted facts, however, the Assessor presents two arguments to support its position on appeal. First, the Assessor asserts that, because the surcharges themselves were not "services" and were not "interstate or international in nature," they are neither excluded nor exempt from the service provider tax. Second, the Assessor asserts that, because PTRCs and CCRCs were intended to recover costs that were not exclusively incurred in Maine, they did not arise solely from the sale of interstate or international telecommunications services in Maine, and therefore they are not excluded or exempt. We do not find either argument persuasive.

C. Exclusion of International and Interstate Services

[¶ 12] Before July 18, 2008, the statute excluded "service originating or terminating outside of this State" from the definition of "[t]elecommunications services," thereby excluding the "sale price" of international and interstate services from taxation. 36 M.R.S. §§ 2551(15), (20)(B)(1) (2007) ; 36 M.R.S. §§ 2552(1)(E), (2) (2007). Construing the statute strongly in favor of MCI and against the State, see BCN Telecom , 2016 ME 165, ¶ 10, 151 A.3d 497, we conclude that the PTRCs and CCRCs collected by MCI before July 18, 2008, were not subject to taxation. The plain language of the statute applied the tax to the "sale price" of "[t]he provision of 2–way interactive communications ... originating and terminating" within Maine. 36 M.R.S. §§ 2551(15), (20) ; 36 M.R.S. §§ 2552(1)(E), (2). Because PTRCs and CCRCs were only included in the "sale price" of telecommunications services originating or terminating outside of Maine during the audit period, see supra Part B, they were excluded from taxation.

D. Exemption of International and Interstate Services

[¶ 13] From July 18, 2008, to the end of the audit period, the statute define...