You are here: / / SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED...
,

SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, determined plaintiff (Sprint) was not a “utility” within the meaning of the relevant statutes and therefore was required to pay both the Utility Tax and the Unincorporated Business Income Tax (UBT). If Sprint were deemed a utility, as opposed to a vendor of utility services, it would have been exempt from the UBT:

The question in Cable & Wireless [Cable & Wireless v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin. (190 Misc 2d 410, 416 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001])], as it is here, was whether the plaintiff telecommunications firm was a utility or a vendor of utility services. The plaintiff there argued, as plaintiff does here, that, under the plain statutory language, it was “supervised” by the PSC [Public Service Commission] and thus must be classified as a utility. In rejecting plaintiff’s argument, the court conducted an extensive review of the legislative history of the statutes and their amendments, including the history of the circumstances surrounding the statutes’ initial passage in 1933 and their amendments through the 1940s to more recent times. After holding that plaintiff had the burden of proving that it was a supervised utility and thus exempt from the tax at issue, the court held that “in using the words subject to the supervision of the [PSC],’ the City Council did not envision imposing the Utility Tax on gross income on entities such as [the plaintiff] which exhibit none of the characteristics of the monopolies to which the tax was intended to apply” … . The plaintiff was therefore not a utility and was not entitled to an exemption from the UBT.

We find the reasoning in Astoria [Matter of Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y. (7 NY3d 451 [2006])] and Cable & Wireless to be equally applicable to the present case. By its own admission, plaintiff is “a competitive entity” that does not enjoy monopoly status. As a result, the “light regulation” by the PSC to which it is subject does not rise to the level of “supervision” necessary to classify it as a utility and thus warrant an exemption from the UBT. Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin., 2017 NY Slip Op 05194, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

You might also like
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH REFERRED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ OPERATE A POWER BUGGY IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CLAIM, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A POWER BUGGY OPERATED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ (FIRST DEPT).
THE METEOROLOGICAL DATA WAS NOT SWORN TO; DEFENDANTS THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
EPTL 2-1.13, Which Required that Certain Formula Clauses in Trusts and Wills Be Calculated as if Federal Estate Taxes Were Paid in 2010 (When the Tax Had Expired) , Did Not Apply to the Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts at Issue Here
MOTION TO DISMISS SUIT SEEKING RETURN OF A PAINTING ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE NAZI-OCCUPIED FRENCH GOVERNMENT DURING WORLD WAR II PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DISSOLVE A FOREIGN CORPORATION.
The Availability of Pre-Suit Discovery in a Shareholder Derivative Action is a Substantive, Not a Procedural, Issue—The Law in the State Where the Corporation Is Chartered Controls
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SUBWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN AND ALLEGED THE ALLOWED SPEED FOR ENTERING A STATION WAS TOO HIGH; DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SPEED STUDIES HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... DEFENDANTS, OPERATORS OF A VIRGINIA HOTEL WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A SHOWER,...