Findings of general assembly--immunity for telecommunicationscompanies, when.
92.089. 1. The general assembly finds and declares it to be thepolicy of the state of Missouri that costly litigation which have or may befiled by Missouri municipalities against telecommunications companies,concerning the application of certain business license taxes to certaintelecommunications companies, and to certain revenues of thosetelecommunications companies, as set forth below, is detrimental to theeconomic well being of the state, and the claims of the municipalgovernments regarding such business licenses have neither been determinedto be valid nor liquidated. The general assembly further finds anddeclares that the resolution of such uncertain litigation, the uniformity,and the administrative convenience and cost savings to municipalitiesresulting from, and the revenues which will or may accrue to municipalitiesin the future as a result of the enactment of sections 92.074 to 92.095 arefull and adequate consideration to municipalities, as the term"consideration" is used in article III, section 39(5) of the MissouriConstitution, for the immunity and dismissal of lawsuits outlined insubsection 2 of this section.
2. In the event any telecommunications company, prior to July 1,2006, failed to pay any amount to a municipality based on a subjective goodfaith belief that either:
(1) It was not a telephone company covered by the municipal businesslicense tax ordinance, or the statute authorizing the enactment of suchtaxing ordinance, or did not provide telephone service as stated in thebusiness license tax ordinance, and therefore owed no business license taxto the municipality; or
(2) That certain categories of its revenues did not qualify under thedefinition or wording of the ordinance as gross receipts or revenues uponwhich business license taxes should be calculated;
such a telecommunications company is entitled to full immunity from, andshall not be liable to a municipality for, the payment of the disputedamounts of business license taxes, up to and including July 1, 2006.However, such immunity and release from liability shall not apply to anybusiness license tax imposed in accordance with subdivisions (1) and (2) ofsubsection 10 of section 92.086 or sections 92.074 to 92.095 after July 1,2006. If any municipality, prior to July 1, 2006, has brought litigationor caused an audit of back taxes for the nonpayment by a telecommunicationscompany of municipal business license taxes, it shall immediately dismisssuch lawsuit without prejudice and shall cease and desist from continuingany audit, except those cities described in subsection 10 of section92.086.
(L. 2005 H.B. 209)
(2006) Subsection 10 of section 92.086, RSMo, is a special law prohibited under subdivision (30), section 40, article III, Constitution of Missouri. Under the nonseverability clause in section 92.092, RSMo, sections 92.074, 92.077, 92.080, 92.083, 92.086, and 92.089, RSMo, are invalid in their entirety. City of Springfield v. Spring Spectrum, L.P., 2006 WL 2256882 (Mo.banc).
Findings of general assembly--immunity for telecommunicationscompanies, when.
92.089. 1. The general assembly finds and declares it to be thepolicy of the state of Missouri that costly litigation which have or may befiled by Missouri municipalities against telecommunications companies,concerning the application of certain business license taxes to certaintelecommunications companies, and to certain revenues of thosetelecommunications companies, as set forth below, is detrimental to theeconomic well being of the state, and the claims of the municipalgovernments regarding such business licenses have neither been determinedto be valid nor liquidated. The general assembly further finds anddeclares that the resolution of such uncertain litigation, the uniformity,and the administrative convenience and cost savings to municipalitiesresulting from, and the revenues which will or may accrue to municipalitiesin the future as a result of the enactment of sections 92.074 to 92.095 arefull and adequate consideration to municipalities, as the term"consideration" is used in article III, section 39(5) of the MissouriConstitution, for the immunity and dismissal of lawsuits outlined insubsection 2 of this section.
2. In the event any telecommunications company, prior to July 1,2006, failed to pay any amount to a municipality based on a subjective goodfaith belief that either:
(1) It was not a telephone company covered by the municipal businesslicense tax ordinance, or the statute authorizing the enactment of suchtaxing ordinance, or did not provide telephone service as stated in thebusiness license tax ordinance, and therefore owed no business license taxto the municipality; or
(2) That certain categories of its revenues did not qualify under thedefinition or wording of the ordinance as gross receipts or revenues uponwhich business license taxes should be calculated;
such a telecommunications company is entitled to full immunity from, andshall not be liable to a municipality for, the payment of the disputedamounts of business license taxes, up to and including July 1, 2006.However, such immunity and release from liability shall not apply to anybusiness license tax imposed in accordance with subdivisions (1) and (2) ofsubsection 10 of section 92.086 or sections 92.074 to 92.095 after July 1,2006. If any municipality, prior to July 1, 2006, has brought litigationor caused an audit of back taxes for the nonpayment by a telecommunicationscompany of municipal business license taxes, it shall immediately dismisssuch lawsuit without prejudice and shall cease and desist from continuingany audit, except those cities described in subsection 10 of section92.086.
(L. 2005 H.B. 209)
(2006) Subsection 10 of section 92.086, RSMo, is a special law prohibited under subdivision (30), section 40, article III, Constitution of Missouri. Under the nonseverability clause in section 92.092, RSMo, sections 92.074, 92.077, 92.080, 92.083, 92.086, and 92.089, RSMo, are invalid in their entirety. City of Springfield v. Spring Spectrum, L.P., 2006 WL 2256882 (Mo.banc).
Findings of general assembly--immunity for telecommunicationscompanies, when.
92.089. 1. The general assembly finds and declares it to be thepolicy of the state of Missouri that costly litigation which have or may befiled by Missouri municipalities against telecommunications companies,concerning the application of certain business license taxes to certaintelecommunications companies, and to certain revenues of thosetelecommunications companies, as set forth below, is detrimental to theeconomic well being of the state, and the claims of the municipalgovernments regarding such business licenses have neither been determinedto be valid nor liquidated. The general assembly further finds anddeclares that the resolution of such uncertain litigation, the uniformity,and the administrative convenience and cost savings to municipalitiesresulting from, and the revenues which will or may accrue to municipalitiesin the future as a result of the enactment of sections 92.074 to 92.095 arefull and adequate consideration to municipalities, as the term"consideration" is used in article III, section 39(5) of the MissouriConstitution, for the immunity and dismissal of lawsuits outlined insubsection 2 of this section.
2. In the event any telecommunications company, prior to July 1,2006, failed to pay any amount to a municipality based on a subjective goodfaith belief that either:
(1) It was not a telephone company covered by the municipal businesslicense tax ordinance, or the statute authorizing the enactment of suchtaxing ordinance, or did not provide telephone service as stated in thebusiness license tax ordinance, and therefore owed no business license taxto the municipality; or
(2) That certain categories of its revenues did not qualify under thedefinition or wording of the ordinance as gross receipts or revenues uponwhich business license taxes should be calculated;
such a telecommunications company is entitled to full immunity from, andshall not be liable to a municipality for, the payment of the disputedamounts of business license taxes, up to and including July 1, 2006.However, such immunity and release from liability shall not apply to anybusiness license tax imposed in accordance with subdivisions (1) and (2) ofsubsection 10 of section 92.086 or sections 92.074 to 92.095 after July 1,2006. If any municipality, prior to July 1, 2006, has brought litigationor caused an audit of back taxes for the nonpayment by a telecommunicationscompany of municipal business license taxes, it shall immediately dismisssuch lawsuit without prejudice and shall cease and desist from continuingany audit, except those cities described in subsection 10 of section92.086.
(L. 2005 H.B. 209)
(2006) Subsection 10 of section 92.086, RSMo, is a special law prohibited under subdivision (30), section 40, article III, Constitution of Missouri. Under the nonseverability clause in section 92.092, RSMo, sections 92.074, 92.077, 92.080, 92.083, 92.086, and 92.089, RSMo, are invalid in their entirety. City of Springfield v. Spring Spectrum, L.P., 2006 WL 2256882 (Mo.banc).
