Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2552 (2026)

Tax imposed

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REPEALED)

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2003, c. 673, §V25 (NEW). PL 2003, c. 673, §V29 (AFF). PL 2005, c. 12, §§VV2,3,TTT3 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 12, §TTT4 (AFF). PL 2005, c. 386, §§S4-6 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 386, §S9 (AFF). PL 2007, c. 539, Pt. DDD, §§5-8 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 627, §§67-69 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 213, Pt. S, §§11, 12 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 213, Pt. S, §16 (AFF). PL 2009, c. 434, §§29-31 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 542, Pt. A, §139 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 331, Pt. C, §14 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 368, Pt. OOOO, §§2-4 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 267, Pt. TTTT, §3 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 267, Pt. TTTT, §9 (AFF). PL 2015, c. 300, Pt. A, §32 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 412, Pt. XXX, §§11, 12 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 412, Pt. XXX, §15 (AFF). PL 2025, c. 388, Pt. G, §47 (RP). PL 2025, c. 388, Pt. G, §48 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2016 ME 165 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2016 ME 165 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)). 7 The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining “[t]elecommunications services” to include, in relevant part, “[t]he provision of 2-way interactive communications…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016). · cites it 5× “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)), . The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining "[t]elecommunica-tions services” to include, in relevant part, .”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 2017 ME 119 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “15, 2015) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552 (2016)). 6 Although this statute was amended partway through the audit period, see infra Part B, the amendment did not affect the relevant portions of this definition for purposes of this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2022 ME 36 (Me. 2022). · cites it 4× “However, * Although Justice Gorman and Justice Humphrey participated in the appeal, both retired before this opinion was certified.”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2022 ME 36 (Me. 2022). · cites it 4× “However, * Although Justice Gorman and Justice Humphrey participated in the appeal, both retired before this opinion was certified.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). · cites it 5× “Although this statute was amended partway through the audit period, see infra Part B, the amendment clid not affect the relevant portions of this definition for purposes of this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). · cites it 8× “MCI also argued that 36 M.R.S.A. § 2552(1) imposes the service provider tax on the "value of' "telecommunications services" sold in the State.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). · cites it 5× “Although this statute was amended partway through the audit period, see infra Part B, the amendment clid not affect the relevant portions of this definition for purposes of this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). · cites it 5× “Although this statute was amended partway through the audit period, see infra Part B, the amendment clid not affect the relevant portions of this definition for purposes of this appeal.”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Maine State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 2× “36 M.R.S. § 2552(1)(E). The service provider tax statute currently defines "telecommunication services," in pertinent part, as: "the electronic transmission, conveyance or routing of voice, data, audio, video or any other information or signals to a point or between or among…”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2010 & Supp. 2016). Two services that were subject to the SPT during the Audit Period were the sale of "telecommunications services" and "ancillary services.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2552(1) — 4 cases

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2016 ME 165 (Me. 2016). “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)). 7 The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining “[t]elecommunications services” to include, in relevant part, “[t]he provision of 2-way interactive communications…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016). “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)), . The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining "[t]elecommunica-tions services” to include, in relevant part, .”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “MCI also argued that 36 M.R.S.A. § 2552(1) imposes the service provider tax on the "value of' "telecommunications services" sold in the State.”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2010 & Supp. 2016). Two services that were subject to the SPT during the Audit Period were the sale of "telecommunications services" and "ancillary services.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2552(1)(E) — 8 cases

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016). “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)), . The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining "[t]elecommunica-tions services” to include, in relevant part, .”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 2017 ME 119 (Me. 2017). “15, 2015) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552 (2016)). 6 Although this statute was amended partway through the audit period, see infra Part B, the amendment did not affect the relevant portions of this definition for purposes of this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). “Although this statute was amended partway through the audit period, see infra Part B, the amendment clid not affect the relevant portions of this definition for purposes of this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2022 ME 36 (Me. 2022). “However, * Although Justice Gorman and Justice Humphrey participated in the appeal, both retired before this opinion was certified.”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2022 ME 36 (Me. 2022). “However, * Although Justice Gorman and Justice Humphrey participated in the appeal, both retired before this opinion was certified.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2552(1)(E)(2007) — 1 case

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “MCI also argued that 36 M.R.S.A. § 2552(1) imposes the service provider tax on the "value of' "telecommunications services" sold in the State.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2552(2) — 6 cases

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2016 ME 165 (Me. 2016). “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)). 7 The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining “[t]elecommunications services” to include, in relevant part, “[t]he provision of 2-way interactive communications…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016). “267, § TTTT-3 (effective January 1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. § 2552(1) (2015)), . The statute differed slightly at the start of the audit period, defining "[t]elecommunica-tions services” to include, in relevant part, .”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2022 ME 36 (Me. 2022). “However, * Although Justice Gorman and Justice Humphrey participated in the appeal, both retired before this opinion was certified.”

State Tax Assessor v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 2022 ME 36 (Me. 2022). “However, * Although Justice Gorman and Justice Humphrey participated in the appeal, both retired before this opinion was certified.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “MCI also argued that 36 M.R.S.A. § 2552(1) imposes the service provider tax on the "value of' "telecommunications services" sold in the State.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2552(2)(2007) — 1 case

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “MCI also argued that 36 M.R.S.A. § 2552(1) imposes the service provider tax on the "value of' "telecommunications services" sold in the State.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.