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:

  • Tammy Nelson: This is crap! Why are the customers always losing and they always win? I pay quite a bit for cable and internet. If you are cutting channels, at le...
  • Mike Colceri: THIS TOTALY SUCKS!!! I LOVE CHILLER , AND NOW YOU'VE GONE AND GOTTEN RID OF IT!!!!😠 BUT MY BILL STAYS THE SAME.....MINUS MY CHILLER!!! WHOEVER IS THE ...
  • BobInIllinois: Jo, FYI on this. YouTube wanted to get this streaming service up fast. The 5 big US cities that you listed all have network tv stations owned and ...
  • Dave Burstein: Phil Good work on this. Nearly no one has reported that the FCC is paying AT&T for an offering they would have anyway....
  • Jo: Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia & San Francisco Bay Area This is it? it's just like google fiber.. a failure....
  • BobInIllinois: Wouldn't this be bad news for all those small, independent WISPs out there?...
  • Jp Eres: I finally filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (New York) as well as the FCC. Magically after months and months of rude customer service...
  • LG: Let me guess.. it comes with a 200Gb bandwidth cap too, right? This month, for the first time, I actually reached my 1 Tb limit with Comcast. It's m...
  • Kerry: This makes four channels that have been removed in the last 60 days. We are still paying the same ....
  • Kerry: Should the F. C. C. step in and stop what seems to be consumer fraud ....
  • Kerry: Very upset with N. B.C. For dropping the chiller channel . I subscribed to tier 1 so I could get all of the channels listed in tier one. It is the...
  • Sam: Hello, I'm Thomas Rutledge CEO Of Charter Cable. My Shareholders in NYC-NJ are on strike. I'm made a whopping $98.5 million dollars. My Union IBEW 3 S...

Your Account: