Verizon stiffed towns on millions in taxes, but might have to pay it back

Proposed law targets Verizon, which didn't pay tax levied by two New Jersey towns.

Read the whole story

 

[Strategos777]

Someone should go to jail for tax evasion. And I don't mean an intern.

 

[Jupitor13]

Business property/inventory taxes are extremely unwise, and I'm glad Verizon avoided them. Governments shouldn't have the right to tax anything and everything. It's pure avarice. NJ should focus on abolishing those taxes, but NJ has terrible government all the way down, which explains this and a lot of other things.

Taxing companies for providing phone service is a great way to increase the cost of phone service.

You're being down voted as you're repeating a RWNJ dog whistle.

As a matter of policy this has been disproven over and over.

 

[toolman83-2]

The NJ municipalities should take a page from the playbooks of corporations such as Verizon and just nickel and dime Verizon out the ass for access to phone lines, land, etc.

"Well, if you had just paid your taxes and not tried to be a bunch of fucking weasels, we wouldn't have to do this. So instead, here are the daily access fees, land fees, stadium fees, fee processing fees..."

Ooh, "fee processing fees", I like it!
(I mean if I have to pay a BS "convenience fee" so should they )

Any other fees we can tack on? Window tax, swamp insurance?

 

[Faanchou]

The NJ municipalities should take a page from the playbooks of corporations such as Verizon and just nickel and dime Verizon out the ass for access to phone lines, land, etc.

"Well, if you had just paid your taxes and not tried to be a bunch of fucking weasels, we wouldn't have to do this. So instead, here are the daily access fees, land fees, stadium fees, fee processing fees..."

Ooh, "fee processing fees", I like it!
(I mean if I have to pay a BS "convenience fee" so should they )

Any other fees we can tack on? Window tax, swamp insurance?

Executed right, you don't need to. Fee processing fees obviously have to also include fees for processing fee processing fees, after all...

 

[jdale]

Someone should go to jail for tax evasion. And I don't mean an intern.

Maybe a rogue accountant?

 

[Seraphiel]

Someone should go to jail for tax evasion. And I don't mean an intern.

What do you think this is, a nation of laws?

 

[TheFu]

Garnish the wages for the SVP and above management of Verizon until every penny is paid with 10% interest per year tacked on. Freeze their bank and brokerage accounts too. Bet that would solve this PDQ.

After they get the money, then Verizon can sue to get it back, if they like.

The US doesn't have debtor prisons, in theory. https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-just ... rs-prisons

 

[Deputy Cartman]

Edit: Double-quote. Removed superfluous post.

 

[Deputy Cartman]

Business property/inventory taxes are extremely unwise, and I'm glad Verizon avoided them. Governments shouldn't have the right to tax anything and everything. It's pure avarice. NJ should focus on abolishing those taxes, but NJ has terrible government all the way down, which explains this and a lot of other things.

Taxing companies for providing phone service is a great way to increase the cost of phone service.

Al Qaeda / ISIS? The Chinese military? Not in their wildest dreams could they hope to cause as much damage to the United States as millions of people such as this guy. Millions of short-sighted and greedy nitwits who would gladly sit in their coastally-flooded hovel, watching their screeching and deformed progeny smashing a tin of dog food against a rock in a vain attempt to open it, nodding sagely and thinking "And I didn't pay any taxes; just the way God intended. Welp, better get back to foraging" before heading back out into the wilds to look for berries and tubers.

 

[Faanchou]

Business property/inventory taxes are extremely unwise, and I'm glad Verizon avoided them. Governments shouldn't have the right to tax anything and everything. It's pure avarice. NJ should focus on abolishing those taxes, but NJ has terrible government all the way down, which explains this and a lot of other things.

Taxing companies for providing phone service is a great way to increase the cost of phone service.

Al Qaeda / ISIS? The Chinese military? Not in their wildest dreams could they hope to cause as much damage to the United States as millions of people such as this guy. Millions of short-sighted and greedy nitwits who would gladly sit in their coastally-flooded hovel, watching their screeching and deformed progeny smashing a tin of dog food against a rock in a vain attempt to open it, nodding sagely and thinking "And I didn't pay any taxes; just the way God intended. Welp, better get back to foraging" before heading back out into the wilds to look for berries and tubers.

Ah. Don't think we didn't notice the socialistic prevalence of dog food tins in that vision.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Rightly or wrongly, the Trump admin is moving heaven and earth -- risking global recession and all -- trying to make it expensive to import stuff (tariffs and all) -- and getting companies to start making/selling things here instead.

But it just seems so disheartening reading stuff like this -- our own American companies doing 'everything' they can to hire the cheapest laborers they can (including offshoring still) and also to evade paying taxes as much as they can!

If, as a nation, we are doing so much to 'help' our American companies, then I think we have a right to demand they step up -- legally and morally -- to hire and pay American workers and also to pay American taxes -- as appropriate!

Sorry for the rant, but it is just so disheartening reading about the likes of Verizon and even Apple not paying taxes... and the likes of Qualcomm

https://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/201 ... -20-years/

engaging in shoddy anti-competitive practices... and myriad of others still manufacturing almost everything 'offshore'...

If this is the way American corporations operate in full pursuit of corporate profits -- to pay primarily their own executives -- then maybe it makes more sense to just up the floodgates and let all companies compete... so at least the American consumer can buy stuff cheaply???

 

[jdale]

Rightly or wrongly, the Trump admin is moving heaven and earth -- risking global recession and all -- trying to make it expensive to import stuff (tariffs and all) -- and getting companies to start making/selling things here instead.

Amateur hour foreign policy and economic policy that seems to be guided more by whims and who flattered the president best and recently is not going to establish the necessary, stable, predictable business conditions that would convince manufacturers to build factories in the US.

I get that some people think his uninformed flailing around and misunderstanding or misrepresenting its economic consequences counts as "doing something", but don't delude yourself that it's going to work.

 

[Hawaiijim]

This sounds more like tax evasion (illegal), rather than tax avoidance (legal).

 

[raxadian]

Unless the law forces them to pay three times more, they still made a bundle thanks to a decade of not paying.

Remember to cry foul when they are offered a discount.

 

[chainsaw667]

Someone should go to jail for tax evasion. And I don't mean an intern.

Its only illegal if your poor
it only legal if your rich
sadly both are true

 

[Pixy Misa Mk II]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.

It's saying "you always owed these taxes" by revising the existing law retroactively.

That's the definition of ex post facto.

 

[Pixy Misa Mk II]

It's not Verizon's fault that New Jersey wrote a bad law with a bad loophole and then failed to correct it for >20 years.

Well, no. Verizon also miscounted 10k phone lines as part of the tax base when they weren't. And when notified of this mistake, they lawyered up instead of just paying the tax they owed.

That doesn't require a change to the law. That just requires enforcing the existing law.

 

[graylshaped]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.

It's saying "you always owed these taxes" by revising the existing law retroactively.

That's the definition of ex post facto.

As I read the story, the current law codifies the intent of the prior law to explicitly say that Verizon's interpretation of the original law was incorrect, and to re-affirm that this is not an annual threshold. Once you meet that threshold, you owe the taxes henceforward.

Verizon may have a case if they can support their interpretation of the original law with facts showing they simply didn't meet the criteria; that they apparently chose to understate their actual market share at least in some communities in what *could* be painted as tax fraud probably doesn't help that case.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

"We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes."
- Leona Helmsley

edit: double post for some reason

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

"We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes."
- Leona Helmsley

God, that's a blast from the past. Another giant from the days of "greed is good."

edit: removed reference to Dump, in the interests of everyone's sanity

 

[GreenReaper]

Business property/inventory taxes are extremely unwise, and I'm glad Verizon avoided them. Governments shouldn't have the right to tax anything and everything. It's pure avarice. NJ should focus on abolishing those taxes, but NJ has terrible government all the way down, which explains this and a lot of other things.

Taxing companies for providing phone service is a great way to increase the cost of phone service.

How do you propose the government do anything without taxes?

There are a significant number of people who propose that the government not do anything, although when pressed there are often things which they think "should be done" by someone who is not them, and which historically have not been done well out of the goodness of people's hearts.

 

[fenris_uy]

Not to defend Verizon but aren't retroactive laws unconstitutional if the new law is worse for the individual or corporation?

 

[tmt]

"We don't pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes."
- Leona Helmsley

God, that's a blast from the past. Another giant from the days of "greed is good."

The "days of greed is good" are right now in the USA. It's closely linked with the whole "prosperity gospel" so loved by conservatives.

 

[bugabuga]

Eh. A giant monster mega lawsuit later (because of "retroactive" re-classification and, I bet, an attempt to say 'well now we're not THE monopoly that was back then, we're a new company!') should they still be forced to pay, local phone customers will simply get 'government is being a meanie' fee (okay, maybe named 'Infrastructure tax reimbursement fee').

I _love_ how politicians like to point out that tariffs are paid by consumers, but taxes on telephone companies are... somehow... not? "We'll make the evil company pay! Also we don't require bogus fees to be included in the price of service, we're not that cruel". I guess politicians love to pretend that company will suddenly abandon years of passing through any regulatory expense it wants down to end users, instead of slimming down margins and what-not.

Now if the law would also prevented new fees somehow...

 

[AxMi-24]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

If it was fine to introduce an ex post facto law giving them immunity to prosecution due to cooperation with NSA why not one where they have to pay taxes. Oh, now I see why not. My bad.

 

[Pixy Misa Mk II]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.

It's saying "you always owed these taxes" by revising the existing law retroactively.

That's the definition of ex post facto.

As I read the story, the current law codifies the intent of the prior law to explicitly say that Verizon's interpretation of the original law was incorrect, and to re-affirm that this is not an annual threshold. Once you meet that threshold, you owe the taxes henceforward.

Verizon may have a case if they can support their interpretation of the original law with facts showing they simply didn't meet the criteria; that they apparently chose to understate their actual market share at least in some communities in what *could* be painted as tax fraud probably doesn't help that case.

Yes.

A new law can't retroactively make Verizon owe taxes; it can only clarify things going forward.

But if Verizon lied to avoid taxes in the first place, not only do they owe those taxes, but they deserve severe penalties over and above what they owe.

 

[graylshaped]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.

It's saying "you always owed these taxes" by revising the existing law retroactively.

That's the definition of ex post facto.

As I read the story, the current law codifies the intent of the prior law to explicitly say that Verizon's interpretation of the original law was incorrect, and to re-affirm that this is not an annual threshold. Once you meet that threshold, you owe the taxes henceforward.

Verizon may have a case if they can support their interpretation of the original law with facts showing they simply didn't meet the criteria; that they apparently chose to understate their actual market share at least in some communities in what *could* be painted as tax fraud probably doesn't help that case.

Yes.

A new law can't retroactively make Verizon owe taxes; it can only clarify things going forward.

But if Verizon lied to avoid taxes in the first place, not only do they owe those taxes, but they deserve severe penalties over and above what they owe.

It may not be necessary to prove they lied. "You were wrong in your reading of the code" may be enough of a finding.

 

[Pixy Misa Mk II]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.

It's saying "you always owed these taxes" by revising the existing law retroactively.

That's the definition of ex post facto.

As I read the story, the current law codifies the intent of the prior law to explicitly say that Verizon's interpretation of the original law was incorrect, and to re-affirm that this is not an annual threshold. Once you meet that threshold, you owe the taxes henceforward.

Verizon may have a case if they can support their interpretation of the original law with facts showing they simply didn't meet the criteria; that they apparently chose to understate their actual market share at least in some communities in what *could* be painted as tax fraud probably doesn't help that case.

Yes.

A new law can't retroactively make Verizon owe taxes; it can only clarify things going forward.

But if Verizon lied to avoid taxes in the first place, not only do they owe those taxes, but they deserve severe penalties over and above what they owe.

It may not be necessary to prove they lied. "You were wrong in your reading of the code" may be enough of a finding.

True. But if it can be shown they lied, that would open them up to major fines as well.

 

[Jilkon]

Why isn't blatently lying on your tax returns a crime and why isn't Verizon hit with punitive damages?

It is a crime afaik, but corporations are only people when it's convenient.

 

[graylshaped]

Isn't the bill just saying "you always owed these taxes," though? It's not adding a new tax.

It's saying "you always owed these taxes" by revising the existing law retroactively.

That's the definition of ex post facto.

As I read the story, the current law codifies the intent of the prior law to explicitly say that Verizon's interpretation of the original law was incorrect, and to re-affirm that this is not an annual threshold. Once you meet that threshold, you owe the taxes henceforward.

Verizon may have a case if they can support their interpretation of the original law with facts showing they simply didn't meet the criteria; that they apparently chose to understate their actual market share at least in some communities in what *could* be painted as tax fraud probably doesn't help that case.

Yes.

A new law can't retroactively make Verizon owe taxes; it can only clarify things going forward.

But if Verizon lied to avoid taxes in the first place, not only do they owe those taxes, but they deserve severe penalties over and above what they owe.

It may not be necessary to prove they lied. "You were wrong in your reading of the code" may be enough of a finding.

True. But if it can be shown they lied, that would open them up to major fines as well.

Even at this late hour, the thought, I confess, brings a smile to my face.

 

[eric102]

And cue Verizon increasing the price of all plans to compensate in 3....2....1....

Can they, though? I know Verizon has been quite the den of arrogant twats for quite a while, but the wireless market has been pretty competitive since Legere started running T-mobile. Even Verizon was brought kicking and screaming back into unlimited data plans.

They have a wired business though. Wire wireline business there are often few if any competitors. I am in a unique area where I have Verizon FIOS and Comcast as options.

Pretty.sure for wired the state PUC regulates them as a utility? Meaning the PUC would need to sign off on increases?

 

[fenris_uy]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

If it was fine to introduce an ex post facto law giving them immunity to prosecution due to cooperation with NSA why not one where they have to pay taxes. Oh, now I see why not. My bad.

Not sure how it works in the US, but where I live you are subject to the more lenient law that affects your case.

 

[og oggilby]

Verizon like ALL cell phone companies is a villain. NONE of the companies honors it's own contract because of bribery they don't have to follow any laws whatsoever and IF they are caught publicly they just throw in the small small tiny tiny fine prearranged by bribing congress and it's just the cost of business since no one EVER goes to jail if they work for a big corporation because we encourage and allow bribery. Why else would our entire gov't look the other way when HALF OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN HACKED VIA EQUIFAX and will be punished for life for being victims.

 

[pssst3]

Uhmm, revise a law retroactively for years?

A specific Court ruling is one thing, a Legislative action quite another.

A bill is not yet a law, and isn't a law that is to be applied events prior to its existence what the ex post facto clause of the Constitution prohibits?

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRachael]

And cue Verizon increasing the price of all plans to compensate in 3....2....1....

Queue? It's already been doing this.

I was a poster-person for Fios. Had the service over 8 years (original Actiontec router with dead pwrsupply and replacement that then failed and eventual new one sit in a bin) and maybe had 2 days total without connection over that span.

Now, I just want internet (50/50 is fine). I can't have it. Fios Customer service is more of a "car dealership" of sale staff pretending to be helping you. $100/month for 50/50 with Bundle of STANDARD TV (no no, not HDTV but Local channel-standard) along with some channel like ShowTime or HBO). STB monthly fee is $13. $5 credit but increase of $5, and $15 credit for a year contract (but they say there is no contract). When all done, its about $100/month.
A new customer is $39/month (first 12 months) then $55/month (last 12 of 24months 2yr contract). Which averages at $48/month for 2 years for 50/50 (they will bump up as a gift to 100/100).
For those of us under financial burden (there is inflation with tariffs...) and looking to weed out unnecessary expenses, there is no reason for shitty services or to prevent customers that kept their agreements fulfilled, to be offered reasonable internet-only package. Especially to a Fios customer over 8years running.
So, cya Verizon. Hope you get taxed. Meanwhile, I have to get shittier service from Comcast for "up to 60Mb for $30/month". (oh, and bring my own modem/router...Arris any good? /s)

 

[AxMi-24]

So Verizon was definitely being sketchy and should pay everything they owe.

However, the description of the bill is making me a bit leery. As described, wouldn't this be an ex post facto law? Which the US in general has historically frowned on (for good reasons).

If it was fine to introduce an ex post facto law giving them immunity to prosecution due to cooperation with NSA why not one where they have to pay taxes. Oh, now I see why not. My bad.

Not sure how it works in the US, but where I live you are subject to the more lenient law that affects your case.

It was more sarcasm about how quick law abiding democracies (at least that's what the government PR machine is spewing forth) to grant all kinds of retroactive immunities to corporations and "intelligence agencies". In Sweden the new FRA law was justified with "FRA is doing it and has been doing it for years so we have to legalise it otherwise they will continue to break the law and that looks bad"... Traitors in BND got the similar treatment, as did GCHQ in UK.

Of course we can't have corporations pay tax. If we allow that kind of thing what's next, demanding decent living wages?

 

[shonthom]

And cue Verizon increasing the price of all plans to compensate in 3....2....1....

And cue customers to switch...

 

[Asvarduil]

Business property/inventory taxes are extremely unwise, and I'm glad Verizon avoided them. Governments shouldn't have the right to tax anything and everything. It's pure avarice. NJ should focus on abolishing those taxes, but NJ has terrible government all the way down, which explains this and a lot of other things.

Taxing companies for providing phone service is a great way to increase the cost of phone service.

How do you propose the government do anything without taxes?

They must think that (NPR) Kansas didn't have to repeal its overly-aggressive tax cuts.

It turns out that "conservatives" (by which I mean regressives, as in the modern GOP) understand neither the point nor the utility of taxes.

 

[GAJett]

"dial tone and access to 51 percent of a local telephone exchange."

Now, I will start by pointing out this is an out-of-context snippet of the law, and so I don't know for sure whether other details in the legislation would contradict what I'm about to say, but:

It seems to me that perhaps Verizon has a point based on the language used.

After all, it's 51-percent of a "local telephone exchange", which doesn't necessarily mean 51 percent of subscribers within Hopewell city limits, if the local exchange is shared with neighboring townships, villages, cities, etc.

Now, that said, I presume the judge in the case would have taken that into account if that were actually the case, so I suppose probably something in the law makes what I said not valid.

The other thing I wonder about, these days - accounting for these percentages must be starting to get pretty complex - because now in addition to copper telephone lines, within a local exchange, you have VOiP lines from cable/fiber services, you might have a VOiP company selling VOiP services using the local exchange numbers, but the customers they are providing service to may be anywhere in the world and move frequently, you have mobile-phone numbers, etc.

It's got to be quite a nightmare to account for all that.

And how do you count phone numbers that are used by people no longer physically living in the geographic area of the exchange, like someone who has moved from the subject town to Florida and keeping their old number. Easiest for the Providof sould be to no longer allow phone number portability.
Chedrs!

 

[King_V]

And cue Verizon increasing the price of all plans to compensate in 3....2....1....

Can they, though? I know Verizon has been quite the den of arrogant twats for quite a while, but the wireless market has been pretty competitive since Legere started running T-mobile. Even Verizon was brought kicking and screaming back into unlimited data plans.

They have a wired business though. Wire wireline business there are often few if any competitors. I am in a unique area where I have Verizon FIOS and Comcast as options.

There is not an area in New Jersey where FiOS is an option but there is no cable option.

If true, that's comforting to know. I wish the opposite were also true. While I'm in an area where I can play Comcast and Verizon off each other when they try to hike my rates, I work with some people who live in parts of NJ where Comcast is the only broadband option . . and they (over)price accordingly in those areas.