Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Jim Gottlieb Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Local/State Taxes Message-ID: <10350@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 2 Aug 90 11:06:22 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan Lines: 21 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 536, Message 13 of 15 In article <10063@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: >Anyone have any idea why this is true, I would think that both would be >subject to collecting the same taxes? I don't know if it applies here, but one difference I have noticed between carriers is that Sprint bills taxes based on the billing address, while AT&T (or at least the local telco, which does our AT&T billing) taxes based on service address. In Los Angeles, which levys an outrageous 10% tax on telecommunications, I know of Sprint customers who rent a P.O. Box outside the city limits and have their bill sent there. We took another approach. We moved all our business to San Diego, as we were paying thousands of dollars in L.A. tax each month and it was on local telco services so a P.O. box wouldn't have helped. I'm surprised there hasn't been more opposition to taxes like this.