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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.