U.S. Code » Title 4 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— THE STATES

4 U.S.C. § 123

Scope; special rules

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 4 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Act Does Not Supersede Customer’s Liability to Taxing Jurisdiction.—Nothing in sections 116 through 126 modifies, impairs, supersedes, or authorizes the modification, impairment, or supersession of, any law allowing a taxing jurisdiction to collect a tax, charge, or fee from a customer that has failed to provide its place of primary use.(b)Additional Taxable Charges.—If a taxing jurisdiction does not otherwise subject charges for mobile telecommunications services to taxation and if these charges are aggregated with and not separately stated from charges that are subject to taxation, then the charges for nontaxable mobile telecommunications services may be subject to taxation unless the home service provider can reasonably identify charges not subject to such tax, charge, or fee from its books and records that are kept in the regular course of business.(c)Nontaxable Charges.—If a taxing jurisdiction does not subject charges for mobile telecommunications services to taxation, a customer may not rely upon the nontaxability of charges for mobile telecommunications services unless the customer’s home service provider separately states the charges for nontaxable mobile telecommunications services from taxable charges or the home service provider elects, after receiving a written request from the customer in the form required by the provider, to provide verifiable data based upon the home service provider’s books and records that are kept in the regular course of business that reasonably identifies the nontaxable charges.(Added Pub. L. 106–252, § 2(a), July 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 630.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Act, referred to in subsec. (a), probably means the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act, Pub. L. 106–252, July 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 626, which enacted sections 116 to 126 of this title and provisions set out as notes under sections 1 and 116 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2000 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date; Application of Amendment

Section effective July 28, 2000, and applicable only to customer bills issued after the first day of the first month beginning more than 2 years after July 28, 2000, see section 3 of Pub. L. 106–252, set out as a note under section 116 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2021 · leading case: People v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 42 N.E.3d 655 (NY 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 42 N.E.3d 655 (NY 2015). “Sprint cites 4 USC § 123 (b) for the presumption that taxes may not be applied to interstate and international calls which are bundled with intrastate calls where the service provider can reasonably identify charges not subject to the tax.”
People v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 41 Misc. 3d 511 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “Sprint attempts to avoid the mandate in section 1111 (Z) by arguing that section 1111 (Z) is inconsistent with, and thus *519 preempted by, the Federal Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act ( 4 USC § 123 [b]) (the MTSA). The MTSA states, in part: “If a taxing jurisdiction does…”
Jacqueline El-Dehdan v. Salim El-Dehdan, Also Known as , Sam Reed (NY 2015). · cites it 2× “Sprint cites 4 USC § 123 (b) for the presumption that taxes may not be applied to interstate and international calls which are bundled with intrastate calls where the service provider can reasonably identify charges not subject to the tax.”
MetroPCS California, LLC v. Batjer (N.D. Cal. 2021). “8 4 U.S.C. § 123 (b). 9 MetroPCS argues that under this section, “as long as the carrier can segregate the revenues 10 applicable to the particular voice service included in a bundle and that service would not otherwise 11 be subject to assessment, any ‘taxing jurisdiction’ such…”
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.