Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2557 (2026)

Exemptions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 218, §§35,36 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 622, §§10-12 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 419, §2 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 438, §§59, 60 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 627, §§71-75 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 204, §13 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 211, Pt. B, §32 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 361, §21 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 434, §§32-36 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 652, Pt. A, §65 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 542, Pt. A, §140 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 267, Pt. TTTT, §§4-8 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 267, Pt. TTTT, §9 (AFF). PL 2015, c. 300, Pt. A, §34 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 510, §2 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 510, §3 (AFF). PL 2017, c. 407, Pt. A, §161 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 445, §§2, 3 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 445, §5 (AFF). PL 2021, c. 348, §57 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 441, Pt. A, §2 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 441, Pt. A, §3 (AFF). PL 2025, c. 388, Pt. G, §47 (RP). PL 2025, c. 388, Pt. G, §48 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2015–2017 · 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). “2 that (A) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services, and (B) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services, 36 M.R.S. § 2557(34) (2011), applied to…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “We agree with the Assessor that (A) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services, and (B) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services, 36 M.R.S. §…”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 2017 ME 119 (Me. 2017). “1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2016)). These changes do not affect this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “8 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2015). 9 The phrase “sales of’ is undefined in the statute, and we must determine whether the exemptions for “sales of’ international and interstate services includes the statutorily-defined “sale price,” which would result in exempting PTRCS and…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Maine State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 4× “Specifically, BOTA explained that: Since subsections 33 and 34 [of'36 M.R.S. § 2557] exempt the sale of international and interstate telecommunications services, we conclude that those subsections must logically exempt the sale price of both services.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “8 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2015). 9 The phrase “sales of’ is undefined in the statute, and we must determine whether the exemptions for “sales of’ international and interstate services includes the statutorily-defined “sale price,” which would result in exempting PTRCS and…”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “8 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2015). 9 The phrase “sales of’ is undefined in the statute, and we must determine whether the exemptions for “sales of’ international and interstate services includes the statutorily-defined “sale price,” which would result in exempting PTRCS and…”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). · cites it 2× “36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34)(2007), amended by P.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2557(33) — 5 cases

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 2017 ME 119 (Me. 2017). “1, 2016) (codified at 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2016)). These changes do not affect this appeal.”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). “8 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2015). 9 The phrase “sales of’ is undefined in the statute, and we must determine whether the exemptions for “sales of’ international and interstate services includes the statutorily-defined “sale price,” which would result in exempting PTRCS and…”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). “8 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2015). 9 The phrase “sales of’ is undefined in the statute, and we must determine whether the exemptions for “sales of’ international and interstate services includes the statutorily-defined “sale price,” which would result in exempting PTRCS and…”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 164 A.3d 952 (Me. 2017). “8 36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34) (2015). 9 The phrase “sales of’ is undefined in the statute, and we must determine whether the exemptions for “sales of’ international and interstate services includes the statutorily-defined “sale price,” which would result in exempting PTRCS and…”

State Tax Assessor v. MCI Commc'n Servs., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “36 M.R.S. §§ 2557(33), (34)(2007), amended by P.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 36, § 2557(34) — 3 cases

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 2016 ME 165 (Me. 2016). “2 that (A) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services, and (B) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services, 36 M.R.S. § 2557(34) (2011), applied to…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Assessor, 151 A.3d 497 (Me. 2016). “We agree with the Assessor that (A) the amounts received by BCN were subject to the tax as part of the sale price for telecommunications services, and (B) BCN failed to provide prima facie proof that the tax exemption for interstate telecommunications services, 36 M.R.S. §…”

BCN Telecom, Inc. v. Maine State Tax Assessor (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “Specifically, BOTA explained that: Since subsections 33 and 34 [of'36 M.R.S. § 2557] exempt the sale of international and interstate telecommunications services, we conclude that those subsections must logically exempt the sale price of both services.”

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.