WASHINGTON-With the federal tax deadline looming, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association has compiled a list of taxes and tax proposals related to wireless service.
“There are more than 14,000 cities, counties, states, public utility commissions and other groups that have the legal authority to add taxes to wireless service,” explained Steve Largent, the group’s president and chief executive officer. “It seems more and more of these regulators are simply using wireless phone bills as a back door to tax increases. Every April, taxpayers have to declare how much we make; policy-makers should be equally upfront about how much they spend and who has to pay.”
The findings come at a time when wireless carriers are seeing numerous consumer lawsuits and complaints about the large number and amounts of line-item fees added to wireless bills.
Among CTIA’s findings:
- Rhode Island wants to increase its monthly $1 E911 surcharge to $1.26 even though according to CTIA, experts have said the current tax is sufficient to cover E911 operations and improvements.
- The state of Maryland is already big on wireless taxes, with Montgomery County imposing a $2 monthly fee and Prince George County imposing a 5-percent tax on each wireless phone bill. Now the city of Baltimore is proposing a wireless tax to help fund schools and Anne Arundel County a 5-percent wireless tax to fund public safety.
- In California, a 3-percent tax has been proposed to help hospitals meet rising emergency room costs.
- Pennsylvania recently decided to include in-state cellular phone calls and other telecommunications operations in the state’s gross receipts tax, which means a 5-percent tax increase that could cost consumers up to $235 million annually. The state already charges a 6-percents sales and use tax on wireless consumers and a $1 surcharge for E911.
“We all support healthcare, schools and public safety, but wireless consumers should not pay for these services alone. Our public officials should balance their books openly and distribute the tax burden evenly, instead of buying these fees on wireless bills,” concluded Largent.
