About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



B-288161 1 (2002-04-08)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacyah0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


   im


7=Accountability * Integrity * Reliability
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548




         B-288161




         April 8, 2002

         Mr. James M. Eagen, III
         Chief Administrative Officer
         Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
         House  of Representatives

         Subject: 911 Emergency Surcharge and Right-of-Way Charge

         Dear Mr. Eagen:

         By letter dated June 18, 2001, you asked whether the United States House of
         Representatives and its respective offices are responsible for paying the 911
         emergency  surcharge and the right-of-way charge to local carriers within the District
         of Columbia. Both charges are itemized on the monthly statement from the local
         carrier, Verizon. As set forth more fully below, we find that the District of Columbia's
         911 emergency surcharge is a tax, the legal incidence of which falls directly on the
         federal government as a user of telephone services in the District of Columbia.
         Consequently, the United States is constitutionally immune and the tax is not payable
         by the federal government. However, the right-of-way charge is a rental fee imposed
         upon the telecommunications companies  and other utilities that use public property.
         Since it is not a tax that falls on the federal government as a vendee, the federal
         government  may pay the right-of-way charge.

         Background

         The House  of Representatives receives a monthly statement from Verizon, its local
         carrier for telephone services. Among the itemized charges are two specific fees
         which are the subject of your letter: a 911 emergency surcharge and a right-of-way
         charge. You note that the federal government is constitutionally immune from
         taxation by the states and where a state tax is imposed directly on the purchaser, and
         the purchaser is the United States, the United States is not required to pay the tax
         pursuant to principles of sovereign immunity. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S.
         (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). You asked us whether the House of Representatives and its