It's all part of the BS experience. I personally think we should tax breathing

Carter - I tried to read the presser, but haven't gotten "subscribed" yet. (How long does it take?) And then I went to the link to HB 469. I can't figure out where that refers to an internet access tax. Is the tax you are referring to a tax on equipment owned by ISPs? Also, please clarify - Bucks' intention would be to institute the tax after Congress adjourns in 2008?

I'm pretty sure I can get my knickers all knotted up about this and I'll be glad to share my outrage, but I would really like to know more about the details before I step in it up to my armpits. Thanks!

There is a problem with the link to the Revenue press release, so here's the release in its entirety:

REVENUE DEPARTMENT AMENDS RULE ON FEDERAL INTERNET TAXATION BAN

Montana will not begin to tax internet access on November 1 when the federal moratorium on internet taxation is scheduled to expire, under a rules proposal filed today by the Montana Department of Revenue.

Revenue director Dan Bucks said the state will not begin applying the state's telecommunications excise tax to internet access on November 1 because Congress is currently considering whether to extend the internet moratorium. He said it would be unwise for the department to use resources to collect a tax that may need to be refunded at a later date.

The department is proposing to amend language in its administrative rules to clarify when the department will consider the federal moratorium on internet taxation to be "lifted." Under the proposed rule change, the department will consider the ban to be "lifted" only at such time as Congress adjourns next year without reauthorizing the internet moratorium. The proposed amendment would alter the language in ARM, 42.31.501.

"Given the unique circumstances of this issue, we will wait to decide how to proceed until Congress either acts or adjourns next year without taking any action," said Bucks.

A public hearing on the proposed rule amendment will be held in Helena on November 14 at 9 a.m. in the Sam W. Mitchell Building, fourth floor conference room. Additional information can be found on the department's website at mt.gov/revenue.

# # #

Auntie Lib:

HB 469 refers to taxation of cell phone companies. Prior to the last session, the Department of Revenue changed one of their rules on how wireless companies are taxed, which resulted in a tax increase of about $3 million. This was all done by Department fiat - there was no legislation involved. HB 469 was introduced to reverse the Department's rule change.

Finally, it appears that Bucks intention is to wait until the end of the year to see if Congress is going to act - if they don't, he's going to change the rules and institute a brand new tax.

The Montana Department of Revenue announced on October 16 that it would not begin taxing internet access on November 1 as provided by Montana law if a federal moratorium expires.

Legislation passed in 1999 mandates applying Montana’s 3.75% telecommunications excise tax to internet access. The Racicot administration then adopted a rule clarifying that the tax would apply to internet access when the federal moratorium expires. Congress is considering a number of bills to extend the moratorium beyond its November 1 expiration date, all with retroactive applicability. It is almost certain that one of those bills will pass.

If the Department of Revenue imposed the tax on November 1 as required by the Racicot administration rule and Congress then passes legislation with a retroactive applicability to internet service, telecommunications companies will have gone to the expense of collecting the tax and then will have to refund the money to consumers. That is in addition to the expense incurred by the department.

Under the new rule proposed by the Schweitzer administration, the Department of Revenue will impose the tax as provided by existing Montana law only in the unlikely event that Congress adjourns without imposing the moratorium.

Carter seems to be interpreting things in his own way to make the story bad for the administration. Do you just make things up...or do you have a little mouse in your pocket?

Cynthia - thanks for clearing things up - the way the press release was written it appeared that DOR was about to impose the telecommunications tax without legislative approval, much the same way that they did last year with the tax hike on cell phones.

Lily - I don't think I misinterpreted anything. Perhaps if DOR had made this clear in their press release, they wouldn't need to backtrack on a blog like this to clear things up.

After their tax hike on cell phone service, can anyone blame us for expecting Dan Bucks to try to tax other means of telecommunication?

This may be too simple/complex a question for your forum, but is it as perplexing to anyone else that Mr. Bucks (a proud democrat) seems to be quite excited about the possibility of imposing a new tax on access to the very "tool" democrats have touted as the consummate equalizer. I wonder precisely at what rate this new tax will be imposed; upon whom; and, most importantly, by how many employees Mr. Bucks' department will need to grow to implement/oversee the potential goldmine? To anyone with more knowledge than I, please advise where I might look for legitimate information. Off the cuff (as it were), I am most certain Mr. Buck's researched and drew conclusions regarding similar questions far in advance of his press release.

Also, thank you to the "author" of the Hardliner. I do not normally comment, but always find your commentary thoughtful and well researched.

Just curious: Why not tax the internet? Why should it be different from anything else?

Because the Internet is all about freedom, baby. Yeah!

David,

Really? After a BILLION dollar surplus? I have an idea. Why don't you give your money and I'll keep mine.

Why not tax the Internet? An interesting question, but a better question would be: WHY tax the Internet? America has changed very much if a sector of the economy must justify not being taxed, rather than the government being required to justify taxing a certain sector of the economy. The burden of proof should be on the government, not on the business. If the government wants to take without consent, it should show good cause. The business should not be required to show cause why it should not be robbed.

forty seven-

the burden of proof? I suppose one could make the argument that it would be criminal to add more of a tax burden to inflate the already bloated budget. And the "government" has no "good cause" for the level of tax burden it has already imposed on it's citizens. They should show "good cause" as to why we shouldn't elect someone else.

Now that Roy Brown is going to jump into the race against Scheister I don't think we have much to worry about, Roy is a top notch candidate and issues like taxing the internet will come to the surface and get the exposure they need. Roy will do an outstanding job of showing what the Govie's true colors are, and he'll force him to answer the tough questions. Let the games begin and a big Thank You to Roy Brown for being willing to take on this campaign, we all need to get behind him and give him our time, our money and our vote!

Red Ink Roy Brown would be your candidate? This is the fella who gave us $32 million in work comp bills; broken pension systems; and attempts to bust the Coal Tax Trust Fund. Where's your business sense?

Viola,

This line of attack on the Worker's Comp Old Fund isn't going to work. The "raid" on the Old Fund was widely seen as a necessary, short-term fix to the budget problems at the time. Here's a quote for you:

"Every state agency ... has stepped up to the plate," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, told State Fund executive director Carl Swanson. "What justification do you have in saying, 'No-no-no-no-no, we're not going to help the state whatsoever'?" http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2002/08/08/local/export73735.txt

Roy Brown was involved in getting this particular bill passed, but I'd say he had some help. Senator John Bohlinger in particular voted for it, as did all but 2 Senators and all but 12 Representatives.

The real problem that you and Schweitzer have with attacking Roy Brown on the Old Fund issue is that in 2005 there was an attempt, SB 315, to pay back the money borrowed during the special session - Roy supported this effort, but Schweitzer was instrumental in getting it killed.

I have no clue what you're talking about in regards to "broken pension systems," and I don't see much "business sense" in attempting to force tax increases by obstructing the attempts to borrow small amounts from the Coal Tax Trust Fund.

I agree with Carter on this one, Viola. The Old Fund issue hurts BS more than RB.

But don't all of you get tired of how Carter always has the answer, like he's some kind of smart guy?

Who is this Carter guy? Why is he such a nerd? Why does he use the name of one of our least successful Presidents for his online handle? I want answers, Jimmy.

On another note: Carter, how do we get this Internet taxation issue out front and center and make BS pay for the Dan Bucks power grab?

Crazy Joe,

You're on to something there. Take the internet taxation thing with all the other crazy stuff Dan Bucks has done and it all adds up to a big Achilles heel for the Gov.

So when are you going to start writing about it more, Jimmy? When is RB going to start talking about it? Or better yet, the MT GOP could start talking about it. Well, maybe not, since they've now blown their credibility with two really stupid made-up stories.