# Ohio Supreme Court upholds state's satellite TV tax



## ctpd845 (Jan 22, 2010)

Thought this was interesting.

http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20101227/NEWS24/101229728


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

ctpd845 said:


> Thought this was interesting.
> 
> http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20101227/NEWS24/101229728


The explanation is simple. The cable lobbyists dug deeper into their pockets then the satellite lobbyists.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Here's a more in-depth story:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=153&sid=13790049

It sounds like, since they could not reap revenue from Franchise Fees and taxes on satellite (which they do get from Cable), they fell back on the old "Sales Tax" crutch, which states often use. "If you bought it, it was a Sale, and therefore taxable under Sales Tax", is the excuse.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

_they fell back on the old "Sales Tax" crutch, which states often use. "If you bought it, it was a Sale, and therefore taxable under Sales Tax", is the excuse._

If it's only on the purchase of the hardware, then I agree. If they're applying it to the monthly service, that's another matter.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> _they fell back on the old "Sales Tax" crutch, which states often use. "If you bought it, it was a Sale, and therefore taxable under Sales Tax", is the excuse._
> 
> If it's only on the purchase of the hardware, then I agree. If they're applying it to the monthly service, that's another matter.


I'm paying normal sales/use tax on my satellite service in Indiana ... but it is a tax that applies to pretty much everything paid for in the state (except unprepared food and a few other exceptions) so while annoying it isn't an unfair tax.

I look forward to seeing what the US Supreme Court has to say about this ruling. Charging a tax based on the method of delivery of competing services is wrong.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

Today's Cleveland Plain Dealer story by Doug Whiteman, Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a state sales tax for satellite TV providers that cable competitors don't have to pay, rejecting arguments from the satellite industry that the tax is unfair and unconstitutional.

In the 5-2 decision released Monday, the state's highest court ruled that the 2003 tax does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause because the tax is based on differences between the nature of the businesses and does not favor in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests.

...

The lawsuit that reached the state Supreme Court was brought by DirecTV Inc. and EchoStar Satellite Corp., and the decision affirms an earlier ruling from a state appeals court. The satellite industry has challenged similar tax discrepancies in several other states, and attorneys said earlier that an Ohio high court ruling either way would likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trimmed to avoid copyright violation. source


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Not a lawyer and not living in Ohio but it would seem to me that a sales tax should be placed on the product, not the method of delivery. Placing a sales tax on satellite delivered TV and not cable delivered would be like placing a sales tax on eggs delivered to a market via 18 wheeler but not on eggs delivered by a farmer in a pickup.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

olguy said:


> Not a lawyer and not living in Ohio but it would seem to me that a sales tax should be placed on the product, not the method of delivery. Placing a sales tax on satellite delivered TV and not cable delivered would be like placing a sales tax on eggs delivered to a market via 18 wheeler but not on eggs delivered by a farmer in a pickup.


The court did say the cable TV companies "pay local franchise fees that range from 2 percent to 5 percent" that the satellite TV companies are exempt from those fees. I still wouldn't call it fair.


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

In the past the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I'm in no way an expert but this ruling would not seem to pass that test.


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

photostudent said:


> In the past the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I'm in no way an expert but this ruling would not seem to pass that test.


It is pretty obvious that this will wind up at some point in the US Supreme Court.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

Ohio wants the money.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

In Texas the sales tax covers nearly everything equally. As for TV:



> *Cable television*
> Distribution of video programming, with or without the use of wires, to paying customers.


----------

