Home » AT&T »Consumer News »Public Policy & Gov't »Rural Broadband » Currently Reading:

AT&T Loses Tax Refund Case: Wanted USF Income Treated As “Contributions to Capital”

Phillip Dampier October 4, 2011 AT&T, Consumer News, Public Policy & Gov't, Rural Broadband No Comments

AT&T has lost a case it appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to win favorable tax treatment for income it received from the Universal Service Fund program, designed to help underwrite the costs of providing rural telephone service.

AT&T was seeking a $500 million income tax refund on its 1998 and 1999 federal taxes from money the government provided AT&T.

Federal tax law requires phone companies to treat the USF revenue as income, subject to regular taxation.  AT&T argued the money was actually a “contribution to capital,” which would have substantially reduced the company’s tax burden.  Contribution to capital, as a concept, has been the subject of several corporate lawsuits over the years.  The genesis of court challenges comes from a 1925 case — Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co., that held government subsidies provided to induce the construction of facilities and provision of service were not taxable income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

AT&T believed that USF funding subsidized the delivery of phone service, so it cannot be considered taxable income.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.  The justices elected to leave intact a lower court ruling that threw AT&T’s arguments aside.

Considering the long history of court losses for other corporate entities who have argued similar cases all the way back to the 1950s, the decision should not come as a surprise to the phone company, and AT&T’s reaction was muted.

“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision,” the company said in a statement. “However, AT&T does not expect any impact to our financial statements.”

The case is AT&T v. United States, 10-1204.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Sarah: Tried the method on Twitter and Facebook with no reply. Any other suggestions?...
  • arbin: "Jill Laing confirmed this week that Eastlink had withdrawn its bid to provide services to under-served rural areas of Nova Scotia under a federal gov...
  • Joyce Weiner: Thanks for your advice, Phillip. Oddly enough, I logged into my TWC account this morning and they had knocked $10 off the bill. But, I'd still like to...
  • Joe V: You know Phil, as much as I agree and am on the side of the union, they are not going to win this fight against Verizon. We all know that AT&T...
  • Brandy: By calling Comcast for the Gallatin, TN area I have found out they don't care that we use the 3 pcs on a daily 2 ipods ,2 xbox and cellphones in 3 da...
  • Phillip Dampier: There have been some price hikes in the last year on retention promotions, mostly thanks to programming-related increases, which have made it difficul...
  • Joyce Weiner: I'm a long time TWC customer in Brooklyn. Every year when I receive my rate hike, I've followed your instructions and sent a tweet to @TWC_HELP. They'...
  • Roger: Oh oh. The "holier-than-thou" club has found Stop the Cap!...
  • mark mckenney: You are an idiot.To tell someone that cable is a "luxury" when they are old and,perhaps,disabled.I am 65 years old and on a fixed income and,I am hous...
  • Scott: If Google is handling the handoff of the Fiber connection with their own branded router for customers to connect up to via Gigabit ports, that's a hug...
  • tacitus: Well, I'm sorry you're going through all that hassle, but you are an extremely rare case if you regularly need to transmit terabytes from home to the ...
  • Sertis: Well, frankly i just want more than the 20mb upstream provided with their Extreme 150 service (I'm currently using). How long does it take me to back...

Your Account: