[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 145 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTRODUCTION OF THE STATE VIDEO TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 27, 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the State Video 
Tax Fairness Act of 2007. This legislation will ensure that video 
competition remains robust, states retain the ability to raise revenue 
through sales taxes, and, most importantly, consumers are not harmed.
  Discriminatory sales taxes harm consumers. It is well-established 
that robust competition for substitutable products generally benefits 
consumers by yielding lower prices and greater quality.
  A number of states, however, have enacted what may be deemed to be 
discriminatory sales taxes on DBS service, with no burden or a lesser 
burden placed on cable subscribers, and more states are threatening to 
do so. These states impose a higher sales tax on nationally distributed 
DBS subscribers than they do on cable or other types of video 
providers.
  The legislation that I am introducing today will ensure fair taxation 
to all consumers, and I hope to conduct hearings and request a GAO 
study of this issue.
  The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007 would prohibit 
discriminatory taxes against any pay-TV service and apply the non-
discrimination principle to taxes on both services and equipment.
  State revenues would not be impacted. The Act would allow states to 
tax pay-TV providers or their subscribers, provided that such taxes are 
applied equally to all such services, including cable and DBS.
  Consumers Union and Media Access Project, in separate letters 
submitted to this record, point out that artificial cost increases to 
the consumer imposed on one category of service provider can undermine 
the consumer benefits of competition. A discriminatory sales tax placed 
on one type of provider but not another is such an artificial cost.
  National Taxpayers Union, in a letter submitted to this record, 
points out that, at the very least state and local governments should 
not discriminate among products or services by disadvantaging one with 
heavier taxes. Discriminatory sales taxes against DBS subscribers set a 
dangerous precedent for picking and choosing winners and losers in a 
marketplace based on who receives the most favorable sales tax 
treatment, rather than who provides the best value to consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

                          ____________________