NYC Tax Law Library: A Community Resource
Kalish Law LLC has compiled the NYC Tax Law Library as a complimentary public service for the benefit of the legal and tax community. This resource is a curated compilation of links to publicly available materials, including statutes, regulations, and recent tribunal decisions, organized to facilitate easier access for practitioners, advisors, and taxpayers.
Help Us Keep This Resource Current
We rely on the collaboration of the tax community to maintain the integrity and accuracy of this library. If you have suggestions for improvements, notice a broken link, or identify a more recent version of a document, please email us at jarrett@kalishtaxlaw.com. Your feedback is essential to keeping this resource as helpful and accurate as possible for all users.
Utility Tax
Recent Tribunal Decisions:
The “Recent Tribunal Decisions” section of the NYC Tax Law Library solely contains recent published decisions from the Appeals Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library does not contain any such decisions from prior to 2003 and does not contain any determinations from the ALJ Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library also does not contain any NYS Court Decisions, even in instances where Appeals Division decisions that are included in the library were the subject of further appellate review in the New York State courts. The summaries of the decisions included below are the same as those that are publicly provided by the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal and are not the work product of Kalish Law LLC.
U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP TAT(E)14-12(UT) and TAT(E)14-13(UT) (April 3, 2018)
BECAUSE NO LONG DISTANCE CALL TO OR FROM A SPRINT CUSTOMER IN THE CITY CAN BE COMPLETED WITHOUT ACCESS PROVIDED BY THE CITY LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER TO SPRINT'S LONG DISTANCE SWITCH, A TAX ON RECEIPTS FOR CHARGES FOR SUCH ACCESS WOULD BE A TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, IS PROHIBITED BY GCL §20-b. THE PROHIBITION UNDER GCL §20-b APPLIES "NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME ACT BE NECESSARILY PERFORMED WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTION WITHIN" THE CITY, SUCH AS THE CITY LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER'S PROVISION OF LOCAL ACCESS TO SPRINT'S LONG DISTANCE SWITCH IN THE CITY. THE PORTION OF THE ALJ DETERMINATION TO WHICH RESPONDENT TOOK EXCEPTION IS AFFIRMED.
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION CORP. TAT (E)12-9(UT) AND TAT (E)12-10(UT) (October 27, 2015)
PETITIONER, A PROVIDER OF SECURE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION INFRASTRUCTURE (SFTI) ACCESS, A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, COULD NOT TREAT "PER END USER FEES" RECEIVED FROM PURCHASERS OF SFTI ACCESS AS SALES FOR RESALE EXCLUDIBLE FROM GROSS OPERATING INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE NYC UTILITY TAX. HOWEVER, RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF SFTI ACCESS TO EXTRANETS WERE EXCLUDIBLE AS SALES FOR RESALE. RECEIPTS FROM CO-LOCATION SERVICES SOLD IN CONNECTION WITH SFTI ACCESS ALSO WERE INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS OPERATING INCOME. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION.
CASTLE POWER LLC TAT (E) 04-32 (UT) - DECISION (December 5, 2007)
SALES OF NATURAL GAS BY MARKETER TO CUSTOMERS IN NEW YORK CITY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY UTILITY TAX BECAUSE THE SALES TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE CITY. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT SECTION 172.b OF THE CITY CHARTER DID NOT ENTITLE PETITIONER TO RECOVER ITS COSTS IN LITIGATING THIS CASE BEFORE THE ALJ OR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS.
ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION TAT (E) 99-65 (UT) (April 12, 2007)
RESPONDENT PROVED THAT THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION (THE "NOTICES") WERE MAILED TO PETITIONER ON BY (1) OFFERING PROOF OF A STANDARD PROCEDURE USED REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF DETERMINATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PROCEDURE AND (2) OFFERING PROOF THAT THE STANDARD PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE. THUS, THE PETITIONS FOR HEARING WERE UNTIMELY AS THEY WERE MAILED ON , MORE THAN NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE THE NOTICES WERE MAILE
ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION TAT (E) 93-1053 (UT) (April 12, 2007)
PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR UTILITY TAX AS A VENDOR OF UTILITY SERVICES. PETITIONER, AS A CONCESSIONAIRE, PROVIDED TELEPHONE SERVICE TO THE HOTEL AND TO THE HOTEL'S GUESTS ALL OF WHOM WERE THE END USERS OF THE SERVICE. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO SALE OF UTILITY SERVICES TO THE HOTEL FOR RESALE AND THUS PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REDUCE ITS GROSS OPERATING INCOME BY RECEIPTS FOR SALES OF TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR RESALE.