In re Appeal of Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 278 Kan. 690

101 P.3d 1239 (2004) · Supreme Court of Kansas · December 17, 2004 · No. Nos. 90,663, 90,664, 90,665, 90,666, 90,667

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed consolidated appeals concerning the denial of sales and use tax refund claims by telecommunications companies. The court held that telecommunications are defined as services under the Kansas Retailers' Sales Tax Act, so equipment used to produce or deliver telecommunications did not qualify for the manufacturing exemption in K.S.A. 79-3606(kk). The court also rejected the taxpayers' equal protection and summary judgment arguments and affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals.

Holdings

  1. Equipment used to engineer a telecommunication product or to control or measure the telecommunications process is not exempt under K.S.A. 79-3606(kk), because the Kansas Retailers' Sales Tax Act defines telecommunications as a service rather than tangible personal property.
  2. The Department's denial of the manufacturing exemption to the telecommunications taxpayers did not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Kansas Constitutions.
  3. BOTA properly applied summary-judgment principles because the dispositive issue was a legal question and the disputed facts concerning the telecommunications process were irrelevant to the statutory determination.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether telecommunications equipment used in engineering or controlling and measuring telecommunications qualifies for the manufacturing exemption under K.S.A. 79-3606(kk).
  2. Whether the Department of Revenue's application of K.S.A. 79-3606(kk) violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions.
  3. Whether BOTA properly resolved the exemption issue on summary judgment despite disputed facts concerning the telecommunications process.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (10)

  • In re Tax Appeal of Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 276 Kan. 672, 682-83, 79 P.3d 770 (2003)(followed)
  • In re Tax Exemption Application of Central Illinois Public Services Co., 276 Kan. 612, 616, 78 P.3d 419 (2003)(followed)
  • In re Tax Appeal of Collingwood Grain, Inc., 257 Kan. 237, 238, 891 P.2d 422 (1995)(distinguished)
  • Sprint v. Commissioner of Revenue, 676 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 2004)(distinguished)
  • Southwestern Bell Tel. v. Director of Rev., 78 S.W.3d 763, 764-68 (Mo. 2002)(distinguished)
  • Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 799 A.2d 902 (Pa. Commw. 2002), aff'd, 577 Pa. 328, 845 A.2d 762 (2004)(distinguished)
  • Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 271 Kan. 596, 609, 24 P.3d 113 (2001)(followed)
  • In re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita, 274 Kan. 915, 920, 59 P.3d 336 (2002)(followed)
  • In re Tax Appeal of Alsop Sand Co., Inc., 265 Kan. 510, 520, 522, 962 P.2d 435 (1998)(followed)
  • Peden v. Kansas Department of Revenue, 261 Kan. 239, 930 P.2d 1 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1229 (1997)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Kansas Supreme Court