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:

  • Chet Lemon: They have done nothing but ignore me on social media....
  • Joe V: It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Frontier is being propped up with help by the U.S. Government with all these acquisitions and network investme...
  • John M. Gillespie: Frontier is the worst IP provider I have EVER had period bar none. I had Frontier in Charles Town, WV in Jefferson County and it was not good. W...
  • BobInIllinois: And, Verizon would be a most unlikely(if not, "NO WAY") buyer, since they passed the original trash to FairPoint....
  • Fred H: I posted the below to my Facebook page just last weekend (before this updated post came out - I'll be updating the link after I finish this comment): ...
  • Phillip Dampier: Readers: Please see our newly updated 2015 guide to Getting a Better Deal from Time Warner Cable. You will get the latest information about negotiatin...
  • Ryan: Ok this article was good. Helped save me $40 per month plus gave me a one time credit of $40. Did my research with the competition first. I didn't ...
  • Dave: Apparently the middle class American(born here) is fast becoming the country's poor by sucking the life blood out of this class of people. Greed, is a...
  • Limboaz: I don't trust big corporations like Comcrap, but I trust the Obama administration even less. In cases such as this, they have a habit of bundling in i...
  • Wendy: Im thinking to sue att I had unlimited data and they made a mistake and removed it from my plan I was told I can't get it back that was a lie they do ...
  • Bob Patten: I live in Grand Ledge MI. I assure we are in the exact same boat. I rarely ever see speeds promised or even close to them. Today is a great day - I am...
  • Miriam Shore: BH bites the biggun. Glad they got it stuck up their posteriors with today's net neutrality ruling. When competition enters this area, it will be a ...

Your Account: