BCN TELECOM, INC.
STATE TAX ASSESSOR
Argued: September 13, 2016
County Superior Court docket number AP-2013-26
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.
Kimberly L. Patwardhan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant State
W. Sullivan III, Esq., for appellee BCN Telecom, Inc.
Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2013-26 For
Clerk Reference Only
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
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),  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) 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.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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),  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 ...