Slashdot Mirror
Florida Ponders Communication Tax on LANs
victor_the_cleaner writes "Here in Florida, a little known tax provision may lead to LANs being taxed. According to the article, 'The provision was intended to make sure companies operating their own land line communication systems, which two decades ago was limited to large utilities and railroads, were paying the same taxes paid by those who rely on commercial phone carriers. About 10 companies (in Florida) pay more than $1.2 million annually based on that definition. However, the statute is so broadly worded that it could be interpreted to describe a local area network.'
Internal auditors at the city of Tampa noticed a couple of years ago that the substitute communications service provision was still there and asked state officials why it wasn't being enforced.
And now people like Sharon Fox, the city of Tampa's tax revenue coordinator are pushing for enforcement."
I would guess that the people pushing for enforcement don't really understand what they're asking for and that it will cost their offices as well.
I see one and only one way a tax on LANs becomes fair. That is if the tax money goes to improving the local and regional communications infrastructure
Nowadays home LANs are pretty common. Try to enforce it on individuals and all hell will break loose. I expect them to go after the large companies first, and when they strike it down, the home users won't worry about having to fight it.
--
Retail Retreat
The Florida Tax Revenue office is naming this new effort 'Why your business should leave Florida' and including helpful tips on moving your business to another state that doesn't do such stupid things as tax your internal computer network.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Well, first, I was giong to suggest, "Dude, April Fool's Day was, like, 2 weeks ago", but then I read the article.
Clearly, companies that rely on LANs will go to places that don't tax LANs. Like neighboring states, or non-neighboring states, or non-neighboring countries. I'm sure the tax assessor is not thinking of the medium to long-term consequences.
Do they tax LANs in India? Russia? Other countries?
Alan.
Florida tax auditor found strangled with cat 5 . Police baffled. "Why anyone would use a network cable is beyond us stated........
I really hate that the system thinks it is entitled to a tax when it is not providing the infrastructure. Sure, if the government is subsidizing a system, but when a company or individual acquires or builds something for themselves, what right does someone else have to came and lay claim to your efforts?
That a tax of this nature was initiated in Florida is just one more reason why I will never willingly choose to live there.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
I mean, what next, a tax for using a remote control to change channels as opposed to standing up and doing it physically? The law may be in place, but they can't honestly expect it to stay so... If it's to tax businesses who put a network in place on their own instead of using telcos, they could just define it as "between multiple sites" or something like that... anything that leaves the building, basically. *shrugs* I certainly hope common sense wins the day. If it applies to network data transfer, is it wired or wireless only? Floppys and CDs are data transfer to... how specific is the method? Bah.
So they are taxing people who use network based communication systems not run my outside companies.
On the surface, it seems like it's taxation without representation: the networks are privately built and maintained. And what do those networks run over for companies that have multiple offices? Outside phone lines, which the Gov't helped build. Ok, it can be argued that there is representation here.
But think about it: if those lines are already running to the buildings and being used, then the taxes are already being paid on them, in the form of basic service fees.
It seems like this law was made to make companies that run their own lines to pay taxes on them, which is taxation without representation. Now it's being applied to people who are already paying the service fees and taxes on them, and are now going to be taxed again for using said lines.
This is going to do one of two things:
1) Make a lot of criminals
2) Be challenged and not stand up in court.
Feel free to tell me I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about, just back it up with reasons and facts, please.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
Admin: Somebody set up us the tax provision.
Admin: We get signal.
CEO: What!
Admin: Main screen turn on.
CEO: It's You!!
Florida: How are you gentlemen!!
Florida: All your LAN are belong to us.
Florida: You are on the way to taxation.
CEO: What you say!!
From August 25th, 2003
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
How would the tax apply to a company that has internal networking? What about a PBX telephone system, would taxes be due? If not, then LANs must also be logically excluded.
More importantly, most LANs integrate with some form of WAN, of which a relationship must exist with a telecommunications company that pays these state taxes already.
From what I read in the article, the tax was only created to level the taxation benefit that large companies would reap from having a private phone system. Even in 1985, the year this tax was implemented, many companies had some form of internal networking to cover such devices as computers, computerized cash registers, etc. and they were not taxed.
Doesn't make sense.
Section 12 says that the tax rate is 6.8% of the sales price, applied yearly.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Taxing internal LANs will have Florida seeing what California and Silicon Valley is now, all the major corporations in their state crossing the border.
Plumber!
I didn't call a plumber. Who is it!?
Flowers!
Flowers for who?
Plumber!
Why you're that crazy Landshark aren't you?
No ma'am, I'm just a dolphin. Will you let me in please?
A dolphin? OK.
Aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!! You're not a dolphin. You're a filthy A LAN inspector!!!
With a tribute {and apologies} to George Harrison:
(If you drive a car car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk walk) I'll tax your feet
(If you push 'trons on the wire) I'll tax your LAN
(If you push them outside)I'll tax the WAN
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
This is exactly why I want to see government pushed as low on the stack as possible. Don't do something at the federal level if you can do it at the state level. Don't do it at the state level if you can do it at the county or city level.
Right now we are looking at Florida doing this. If Florida is stupid enough to pull this, people and businesses in Florida at least have the option to go to a different state. Imagine if it were a Federal tax law.
This is also a great example of why laws should be clearly written. A few years back, there was an initiative in Washington state with some vague provisions. The anti- guys pointed out that with some broad interpretation, the initiative would give some really broad powers to the government; the backers of the initiative said "Don't be silly, no one would ever interpret the law that way." Oh, really?
Vague laws are ticking time bombs.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
And
And
IANAL, but the way I read this, computer networks can not be "Substitute communications system" because "communications services" does not include "Information services", "Internet access service", "similar on-line computer services".
This is just another instance of government officials not understanding the technology they are trying to tax, regulate, and legislate.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.