```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1804 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1804

  To prohibit discrimination in State taxation of multichannel video 
                   programming distribution services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2011

Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Jordan) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit discrimination in State taxation of multichannel video 
                   programming distribution services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Video Tax Fairness Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    No State shall impose a discriminatory tax on any means of 
providing multichannel video programming distribution services, 
including Internet protocol technology (or any successor protocol), 
direct broadcast satellite delivery, and cable television services.

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATORY TAX.

    (a) Determination of Discriminatory Tax.--For the purposes of this 
Act, a tax is discriminatory if the net tax rate imposed on one means 
of providing multichannel video service is higher than the net tax rate 
imposed on another.
    (b) Net Tax Rate.--The net tax rate imposed on multichannel video 
service includes any charge levied by a State legislature or other 
statewide taxing authority with respect to, or measured by, the 
charges, receipts, or revenues from, the provision of multichannel 
video service, to generate revenues for governmental purposes. The net 
tax rate is the effective rate paid by the provider or its customers 
for the service, offset by any exemption, deduction, credit, incentive, 
subsidy, or exclusion that diminishes the effective rate.
    (c) Exclusion and Limitation.--
            (1) The net tax rate imposed on multichannel video service 
        does not include any obligation by any name, whether a duty, 
        fee, charge, payment, or tax, or other payment obligation, 
        imposed or collected, in whole or in part, as consideration 
        for, or as a condition related to, the acquisition of a 
        property right or other item or service of value that is paid 
        directly or indirectly to any State or local taxing authority.
            (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a service provider is 
        deemed to be paying such an obligation indirectly to 
        governmental units if, and to the extent that--
                    (A) governmental units had previously imposed the 
                obligation on, or collected the obligation from, the 
                service provider or its customers;
                    (B) the State abolished or limited the obligation;
                    (C) revenues collected from the payment of the 
                obligation are directed to a fund other than the 
                general fund; and
                    (D) the fund is directed in whole or in part to 
                compensate the governmental units that had previously 
                imposed or collected the obligation for lost revenue.

SEC. 4. EXCEPTION.

    (a) Current Taxes.--The prohibition contained in this Act shall not 
apply to any tax that was imposed in its current form before January 1, 
2011. Nothing in this section shall preclude any such tax from being 
ruled discriminatory or otherwise illegal on any basis other than the 
prohibition contained in this Act and nothing in this section shall 
affect the outcome or remedy of any pending or future litigation 
invoking other provisions of law.
    (b) Interpretation.--Nothing in this section shall be interpreted 
to mean that discriminatory taxes in the multichannel video programming 
marketplace are acceptable. It is the sense of Congress that such 
discrimination effectively stifles competition to the detriment of all 
consumers, and that states that have adopted discriminatory regimes 
should repeal them forthwith, even if not obligated to do so under this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```