Sprint being sued by NY for tax fraud....

[marioc21]

Well Sprint certainly doesn't need this.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/sprint-newyork-lawsuit-idUSL2E8FJ6ZM20120419

 

Not the time to trying to fend off a $300 million lawsuit.

[Roberto]

You beat me by 6 minutes! Didn't even see the post.

 

But you're right, this has certainly come at a bad time.

[S4GRU]

You beat me by 6 minutes! Didn't even see the post.

 

But you're right, this has certainly come at a bad time.

 

Roberto, I am going to remove your thread. Thanks for posting, though! Glad so many of our members are paying close attention.

 

Rober

[bobbi]

"Sprint categorically denies..."

[S4GRU]

I love this quote:

 

With this lawsuit, the Attorney General's office is claiming New York consumers, who already pay some of the highest wireless taxes in the country, should pay even more. We intend to stand up for New York consumers' rights and fight this suit."

[marioc21]

I love this quote:

 

Unfortunately when you read the details of what's being alleged, Sprint may be in some trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if Sprint tries to settle this thing before it goes to trial.

 

Link to complete WSJ article.

 

 

http://online.wsj.co...0582832286.html

 

Obviously, the attorney general is just trying to make a name for himself to advance his career. He's found a big fish he can go after and generate some headlines.

Edited April 20, 2012 by S4GRU
Removed quote of WSJ article to protect S4GRU from infringement

[JeffDTD]

I don't think this was ever about Sprint being able to "keep taxes low for customers" If that were important, they wouldn't have ever tacked on those "Admin fees" that we all get. I'd think the discrepancy is more-so in how much of those taxes collected they turn over to the state. I think I'd rather them collect the maximum allowed tax on the plan (thus avoiding lawsuits) and can the admin fees that line their pockets. But oh well.

 

Its a little disgraceful to me that an employee or someone with access to internal emails chose to keep emails and take them to the state. Its quite possible that sprint could argue those emails are not permissible evidence based on how they were obtained. Of course, considering the anti-big business attitude that is permeating through our society today and in the courts, its likely the judge will allow them on face value alone.

 

If the state issued a clarifying memo in 2002, it would be valuable to revisit the memo with direct reference to the "wireless ecosystem" in 2002. At that time, text messaging had NOT been embraced by the general public at excess. Most of us had minute plans that included a few messages and didn't charge for them incoming, etc. Vision plans (internet) were available , but they also USED MINUTES ON YOUR PLAN, so, the minute bucket itself's usage itself would allot for talk and data while they could argue most customers did not subscribe to text in 2002. Sprint's interpretation of the law would have worked for them in 2002. So, if the memo was issued in 2002, considering the wireless environment, what was the state's actual intent at the time? And are the other carriers collecting and paying taxes for data plans and messaging plans today?

[WiWavelength]

Here's the complete WSJ article.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0582832286.html

 

 

Mario, I apologize if I have you confused with someone else, but have you not already been warned once about posting full text articles (especially WSJ articles)?

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/page/index.html/_/site-guidelines-rules/guidelines-about-posting-articles-from-outside-websites-r26

 

AJ

[marioc21]

Mario, I apologize if I have you confused with someone else, but have you not already been warned once about posting full text articles (especially WSJ articles)?

 

http://s4gru.com/ind...de-websites-r26

 

AJ

 

No, I was not. But it's duly noted for the future.

 

Edit:

 

Had to double check to make sure. No, that wasn't me. But I'll stick to just links in the future.

Edited April 20, 2012 by marioc21

[strung]

Typical New York. Taxing everything any anything