• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Endorsements
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

    Paul Wellman (file)

    Rob Peirson, the City of Santa Barbara's financial director


    New Phone Tax

    Voter Approval Needed to Replace Obsolete Telecommunications Fees


    Thursday, February 28, 2008
    By Bianca Licata, Martha Sadler
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Bookmark This
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    furl furl
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Facebook Facebook
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

    Since a federal court has rendered the Internal Revenue Service’s old time-and-distance phone bill tax obsolete, the City of Santa Barbara, among others, must rewrite its own updated telecommunications tax — and quickly. At stake is almost $4 million in annual revenue, money that currently makes up approximately 14 percent of the city’s road maintenance budget — counting both general fund and Measure D monies. The telecommunications tax also helps pay for emergency and recreational services.

    The object of the game is to get voter approval before the communications providers sue the city, whose current Utility Users Tax (UUT) is written as a mirror image of the Federal Excise Tax that a federal court ruled against in May 2006, saying that the IRS could no longer tax calls based on time and distance — a practice that dates back to the Spanish-American Civil War, said City Finance Director Bob Peirson. As a result of the ruling, the federal tax was suspended, and the IRS was forced to repay taxpayers $25. There is some irony, Peirson said, in the fact that cities throughout the nation mimicked the federal tax code’s language at the behest of the telecommunications companies, to make calculations easier for them. So when the IRS updated its excise tax law in the 1970s to apply to prepaid phone cards and wireless phone plans, the cities immediately followed suit. But the court struck down the federal rewrite, and now the cities are sitting ducks for legal challenges, which telecommunications companies have already initiated in five cities, including Sacramento and Los Angeles.

    In order to avoid a domino effect of budget cuts and cash displacements, Peirson said that the city must rework the language of the current utility tax to apply to newer forms of communication but without reference to time or distance. The new tax would be collected from both wired and wireless phone plans, and Voice Over Internet technology as well.

    The council asked whether it would include other Internet use. “What are we actually measuring here?” asked Councilmember Grant House. “People leave their computers on, just sitting there: Do they get charged?” Peirson explained that federal law prevents taxing the Internet for at least the next 10 years. “We aren’t going to tax email or Internet access,” he said.

    The city’s current UUT collects on a limited range of telecommunications — phone and cable — at a rate of 6 percent. The expansion in communications methods means that a broader base of technology can be taxed, Peirson said, but at a lower rate, allowing the city to reduce most individuals’ tax bills while capturing the same amount of revenue. Paging, interstate Internet communications, private communication services, Internet protocol television (IPTV), and voice service could all be subject to taxation. Similar ordinances spreading the burden among services have passed by wide margins in several cities.

    The council appeared to be leaning toward placing a rewritten utility tax on the November 2008 ballot, when it would require a majority vote. This means it would have to be rushed through the Ordinance and Finance Committees. However, only if the ordinance is placed on the ballot during a general election can it be passed by a simple majority vote, and the next opportunity for that is November 2009. If placed on the ballot during a special election, it would require a two-thirds majority to pass.

    Story Help (Click-ability)
    Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    Remember: While we need to have enough taxation to run our infrastructure the income tax was only supposed to be temporary, and all the bond measures passed in this state were supposed to help our schools and neither has come to pass.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    billclausen (anonymous profile)
    February 28, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    We pay way to much to the City of SB in Taxs already..
    Give it up. Stop Taxing me every time I turn around.
    The City does not own my Phone line, they were made public years ago. So your outdated Taxes should stay outdated.
    P.S. VOIP is not taxable by the City. So everyone switch to a VOIP system..

    No more Taxes.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    thew (anonymous profile)
    March 4, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    P.S. the city does not maintain the streets unless you call them , harass them and offer to sue. So why would this change things. Currently the city cannot tax us if we use new internet based technology. So vote no on this when it comes around. Its all smoke and mirrors to get us to approve yet another Tax. Now if the City actually provided my phone service I would think otherwise.

    Say no to new Taxes.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    thew (anonymous profile)
    March 4, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Post a comment

    Username:
    Password: (Forgotten your password?)

    Comment:

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Currently:
    Few Clouds
    Temperature:
    48.0°
    Wind:
    5 NE

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Best Of 2009
    • 2009 Election Coverage
    • Wedding Guide 2009
    • Blue Green Guide 2009
    • SBIFF 2009
    • Tea Fire 2008
    • Local Heroes 2008
    • Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • Within the Syuxtun Story Circle
    • Camellia Sasanqua
    • Whole New Ballgame
    • Gratuitous Gore on Highway 154
    • Saul Williams Brings Afro-Punk Tour to Velvet Jones
    • Where There’s a Dill, There’s a Way
    1. Travis Armstrong Is Outta There
    2. S.B. Bank & Trust's Rocky Year
    3. UC Campuses Dominate Rankings
    4. What buildings did architect Julia Morgan design in Santa Barbara?
    5. Rattlesnake and San Roque Side of Jesusita Trails to Re-Open Friday
    6. Sexile
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2009 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.