Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor

Supreme Court of Maine

November 8, 2016

BCN TELECOM, INC.
v.
STATE TAX ASSESSOR

          Argued: September 13, 2016

         Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2013-26

          On the briefs:

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

          Michael L. Sheehan, Esq., and Michael S. Smith, Esq., Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Portland, and John W. Sullivan III, Esq., Sullivan & Associates, P.C., New York, New York, for appellee BCN Telecom, Inc.

         At oral argument:

          Kimberly L. Patwardhan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant State Tax Assessor

          John W. Sullivan III, Esq., for appellee BCN Telecom, Inc. Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2013-26 For Clerk Reference Only

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

          SAUFLEY, C.J.

         [¶1] The State Tax Assessor appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Murphy, J.) in favor of BCN Telecom, Inc., on BCNs appeal from the assessment of a state service provider tax, 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1)(E) (2011), [1] on certain flat charges that BCN imposed on some business customers lines from March 2008 to October 2011. The charges were designed in part to reimburse BCN for presubscribed interexchange carrier charges (PICCs)[2] that it paid to access local telephone infrastructure, and in part to generate profits. We agree with the Assessor that (A) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services, and (B) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services, 36 M.R.S. § 2557(34) (2011), applied to these charges. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment entered by the Superior Court.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         [¶2] This matter was decided by the Superior Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court considered the matter de novo, see 36 M.R.S. § 151-D(10)(I) (2015), [3] and we review the decision of the court on appeal. In considering an appeal from a 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. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Blue Yonder, LLC v. State Tax Assessor,2011 ME 49, ¶ 7, 17 A.3d 667. In interpreting statutes, we give effect to the Legislatures intent as expressed in the statutes plain meaning. Scott Paper Co. v. State Tax Assessor,610 A.2d 275, 277 (Me. 1992). Because the Superior Court was authorized to rule on legal matters de novo, see 36 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.