Search Posts
Recent Posts
- Outdoors in RI: Turkey talk, conservation news, comedian picks RI, Greenway, holiday lights, 2A November 22, 2024
- Business Beat: Bristol County Savings Bank promotes Dennis F. Leahy November 22, 2024
- Rhode Island Weather for November 22, 2024 – Jack Donnelly November 22, 2024
- Thanksgiving 2024. Love, Family, Remembrance, Fear, Loathing – Mari Nardolillo Dias November 22, 2024
- Find the right vein, first time, every time. NEMIC, VeinTech partner to bring ultrasound tech to US November 22, 2024
Categories
Subscribe!
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.
Verizon loses tax claim for $22,000,000 from Rhode Island – John J. “Jack” Partridge
by John J. “Jack” Partridge, contributing writer
In a matter that seems to have escaped most media attention, Verizon appealed the decision of the Rhode Island Tax Administrator to reject Verizon’s claim of a $22,000,000 tax refund.
Under applicable statutes, the state collects a tangible property tax on Verizon’s tangible property throughout Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode island municipalities which receive the proceeds of the tax, and it is not stated explicitly in the statute, or otherwise adjudicated, as to whether the state or municipalities would bear the burden of such a refund if Verizon was successful in its appeal,.
Therefore, Providence intervened in the suit on the side of the Tax Administrator. It was estimated the adverse effect of a refund could potentially cost Providence in excess of $2,000,000 for each tax year in question so, out of an abundance of caution, Providence intervened in the appeal to support the Tax Administrator’s rejection of Verizon’s claim, so as to protect itself potentially from liability for large amounts in current and later tax years.
Other municipalities attempted to join Providence but the Supreme Court affirmed a District Court ruling that their interests were legally the same as Providence, so it was not necessary for those municipalities to join the suit.
In essence, the appeal involved an interpretation of RIGL 44-13-13 as to the proper method of determining what constitutes accumulated depreciation under the statute. The Tax Administrator asserted the statute requires a uniform method of depreciation based on book value of Verizon’s taxable tangible property, and not a subjective market value methodology urged by Verizon involving economic and functional obsolescence of tangible property.
The District Court Judge William Trezant ruling on a motion for summary judgement, analyzed the language of the statute and sided with the Tax Administrator, thereby, at least momentarily saving the state, and potentially municipalities, of millions of dollars of liability.
Verizon has asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court to review the judgment; thus, the Rhode Island Supreme Court will have the final say on the issue, but in the meantime the state and its municipalities can breathe a sigh of relief.
___
To read more columns by Jack go to: https://rinewstoday.com/our-team/john-j-jack-partridge/
John J. ‘Jack’ Partridge, is a retired lawyer and Senior Counsel to the firm of Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP, with four offices in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
A Pawtucket native, Jack graduates from St. Raphael Academy and summa cum laude of Providence College, where he majored in history. After Harvard Law School, he served in the United States Army in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal. In 1967, he joined the firm of Tillinghast Collins & Tanner. In 1988, he became a founding partner of Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP.
Jack has been engaged in many civic, political, governmental, and business organizations, serving as legal counsel to the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce for 27 years and was chairman of the Old Slater Mill Association, Common Cause Rhode Island, and Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island.
He is the co-founder of The Pawtucket Foundation and an officer and director of innumerable not-for-profit entities. He served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Pawtucket Boys & Girls Club and was Treasurer of the Ocean State Charities Trust.
Jack has a long history of leadership involvement with Providence College, which recognized him in 1999 with the Providence College Alumni Association Recognition Award for Public and Community Service, and in 2011, with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree.
He is married to the former Regina McDonald and has three children: Sarah, Gregory and David.
John Vit
A bit confused by your comment.
“Our legislature approved it”.
Approved the RI Gross Receipt Tax or approved not wanting to approve it and thus being exempt from it?
Has RI been receiving the Gross Receipt Tax since that time and fears the requirement to reimburse those who have paid it? Or has the tax not been paid pending the outcome of the legal challenges?
How is it that the PUC regulates land lines but not wireless ones? Evidently communications from wireless phones and laptops can be and are tracked, what makes it impossible for the state to implement the GRT, not that I think that’s a good idea, I don’t. I’m just wondering when the state will begin tracking the air we breathe and the water we drink. Oh, my mistake, maybe they don’t tax the water we drink, it’s the bottle it’s in, and they tax the water bill regardless of how the water is used. That’s RI legislation!
As a wireless dealer for 13 years, how did this influence your business practices?
Many years ago, Thomas Ahern, a lobbyist for New England Telephone, lobbied our State Legislature to approve the RI Gross Receipt Tax.
NE Telephone did not want to pay their income tax. Our Legislature approved it.This happened prior to wireless phones.
RI continued to allow NE Telephone, NYNEX & VERIZON to continue this practice on both land line & wireless accounts
Land lines are regulated by the RIPUC.
Wireless is not regulated by anyone.
This should be Taxation without representation is tyrant.
I was a wireless dealer from 1985-1998.
Respectfully
John Vit