# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 13

- 478 T (Filed: February 29 , 2016)

8x8 , INC.

,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA

,

Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Keywords: Summary Judgment; Tax Refund; I.R.C. § 6415; Federal Communications Excise Tax; I.R.C. § 4251; Prepaid Telephone Card; Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4; I

. R

. S

. Notice
2006

- 50

Anthony Gulotta

, Gulotta Law Group, P.C.

, Harrisburg, PA, for P laintiff

.

Benjamin C. King, Jr. , Attorney of Record

, Court of Federal Claims Section, with whom

were G . Robson Stewart

, Assistant Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section

, David I

. Pincus

, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, and Caroline D. Ciraolo , Assistant Acting Attorney General

, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for D efendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge.

Plaintiff 8x8, Inc. (8x8)

, a provider of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, seeks a refund of more than $1 million in taxes it remitted to the United States pursuant to I.R. C. § 4251, which impos es an excise tax on certain “ communications
services. ” Currently before the C ourt are the parties ’ cross

- motions for summary judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes based on the undisputed facts
that 8x8 is not entitled to obtain a refund because it acted as a “collector” of the tax es at issue within the mea ning of I.R .C. § 6415(a). Under that provision, a collector may
obtain a refund from the I nternal R evenue S ervice (IRS) only if it has repaid the amount
of the tax es to the person from whom they were collected , or has obtain ed th at person ’s

consent to receive the refund. Neither condition has been met in this case.

Moreover, the Court finds unpersuasive 8x8 ’s argument that it is nonetheless
entitled to a refund in accordance with certain laws, regulations, and IRS Bulletins2

governing the refund of exci se taxes paid by sellers of prepaid tele phone cards and “similar arrangement [ s ] which permit [] [their] holder [s] to obtain communications services and pay for such services in advance .” I.R.C. § 4251(d)(1), (3) ; see Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4

. The services 8x 8 provided to its customers were not similar to prepaid telephone cards

, and even if they were, 8x8 would still not be entitled to a refund because, again, it did not pay the taxes for which a refund is sought; it collected them. Accordingly, the governmen t ’s cross

- motion for summary judgment is GRANTED , and 8x8’s motion is DENIED

.

BACKGROUND

I. The Federal Communications Excise Tax on Toll Telephone Service

The federal government levels an excise tax on certain types of communications services, including “toll” telephone service. See I.R. C. § 4251. This tax is known as the Federal Communications Excise Tax (FCET). Ordinarily, t he person who uses the
communica tions service pays the tax

. See Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 2(c) (“The [FCET is] payable by the person paying for the services rendered

. . . .”). But the government does
not collect the tax directly from the user. Instead, “ the pe rson rendering the services”

mu st “ collect the tax and return and pay [it] over .” Id. For toll telephone service, the person rendering the service is the telephone service provider (or “carrier”). Thus, the
carrier acts as a “collector” of the FCET.

Congress has defined “toll” telephon e service as any “telephone quality communication” for which the charge “ varies in amount with the distance and elapsed
transmission time of each individual communication .” I.R.C. § 4252(b)(1). When Congress adopted this definiti on in 1965, AT&T held a leg ally sanctioned monopoly over
l ong distance phone services in the United States. See Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1965,
Pub. L. 89

- 44, § 302, 79 Stat. 136, 146 (1965); see also Reese Bros., Inc. v

. United
States , 447 F.3d 229, 23 3

– 3 4 (3d Cir. 2006). The sta tute thus “ reflect [ ed ] an effort by Congress to conform the definition to the long

- distance pricing methods then in place .”
See Reese Bros.

, 447 F.3d at 234.

By the late 1990s, AT&T ’s monopoly was no more, and the rates charged by most carriers for long distance calls no longer varied with dis tance; instead, rates were set based only on a call ’s duration

. See OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States , 428 F.3d 583, 586 (6th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, the IRS continue d to take the position that such long
distance calls c onstituted toll telephone service and thus remained subject to the FCET.
Id. Litigation ensued

. See id. at 587; see also Reese Bros. , 447 F.3d at 234 ; Am. Bankers Ins. Grp. v. United States , 408 F.3d 13 28 , 1331 (11th Cir. 2005); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. United States

, 431 F.3d 374, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2005). After several courts of appeal s rejected the IRS’s position

, t he agency acquies c ed and acknowledged in 2006 that “a telephonic communication for which there is a toll charge that varies with elapsed
transmission time and not distance

. . . is not taxable toll telephone service

. ” See I

. R

. S

. Notice 2006

- 50

, § 1(a) , 2006

- 25 I.R.B. 1141.3 In the same notice , t he IRS set forth a process that allowed ta xpayers to obtain a
refund of the FCET that had been exacted on non

- taxable services during the period
between February 23, 2003

, and August 1, 2006. 1 Id

. § 5(a). For purposes of the refund

process , the IRS stated that it would treat not only long distance service as non

- taxable service, but also “bundled” service

— that is, “local and long distance service provided under a plan that does not separately state the charge for the local telephone service.” Id. § 3(a), (d). Examples of bundled service included “Voice over Internet Protocol service, prepaid telephone cards, and plans that provide both local and long distance service for either a flat monthly fee or a charge that varies with the elapsed transmissi on time for which the service is used.” Id. § 3(a). Taxpay ers could request refunds through their tax returns for the 2006 tax year or by subsequently filing an amended return

. See i d. § 5(d). The IRS permitted taxpayers to file amended returns requesting these refunds through July 27, 2012. See I.R.S. Announcement 2012

- 16

, 2012

- 18 I.R.B. 876.

II. 8x8’s Voice O ver Internet Protocol Services

The facts in this case are not in dispute. 8x8 provides VoIP services that permit

users to make voice calls over a b roadband internet connection instead of a traditional phone line. Joint Stip. of Facts (JS) ¶ 5, ECF No. 26; s ee also Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n
v. FCC , 483 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir. 2007); Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP)

, FCC.gov, https://www.fcc.gov/general/voice

- over

- internet

- protocol

- voip (last visited February 24, 2016 ). To place a VoIP call, the user’s speech must be converted into an
internet

- compatible digital signal. 2 See Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP)

, supra

. Thus,

t o use 8x8’s VoIP service, 8x8 ’s customers first had to plug their phones into a propri etary “digital terminal adapter ” (DTA), which they could purchase from 8x8 or
another retailer

. See JS ¶¶ 15

– 17.

When a customer placed a call , 8 x8 would route the outgoi ng digital signal t o a digital “ switch site ” that it owned

. See Compl. ¶ 11 , ECF No. 1 ; JS ¶ 20. At the switch
site , 8x8 handed off most of the calls to Level 3 Communications, LLC, or Global Crossing, two larger , traditional phone carriers, from which it purchased phone service in

1 On April 9, 2012, Notice 2006

- 50 was prospectively vacated as a result of unrelated litigation. See In re Long

- Distance Tel. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax Refund Litig. , 853 F. Supp. 2d 138, 145 (D.D.C. 2012). Because this vacatur was not retroactive, it does not affect
the outcome of this case.

2 Specifically, the user’s speech must be converted into digital packets of information,
which are then separately routed to the destination and reassembled in the correct order.
See Rus Shuler, How Does the Internet Work?

, https://web.stanford.edu/class/
msande91si/www

- spr04/readings/week1/InternetWhitepaper.htm ( last visited February 24, 2016); see also Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of its Cross

- Mot. for Summ. J. (Def.’s Mem.)
Ex. 5 at 12

– 13 , ECF No. 40 (explaining the data transm ission portion of 8x8’s VoIP service). This contrasts with traditional (or analog) phone service, which connects the callers over a single, dedicated circuit.4

bulk

. 3 See JS ¶ 10 ; Def.’s Mem. Ex. 5 at 12. If necessary, t hese carriers w ould convert the digital signal to an analog signal and connect it to the existing network of physical p hone
lines

. Def.’s Mem. Ex. 5 at 12 (explainin g that the carriers “have something called a gateway that converts [the digital signal] from [Internet Protocol] into the public telephone network, so it takes it from being on the internet to being on a physical copper line”).

To sign up for 8x8’s serv i c e, customers purchase d a DTA loaded with 8x8’s proprietary software and then enroll ed in a “subscription plan” online. JS ¶ ¶ 15

– 17

. To secure service, customers were required to agree to 8x8’s lengthy “Terms and Conditions
of Service” and provide a credit card number. Id. ¶ 17. Upon enrollment, 8x8 provided
customers with a ten

- digit code that they could use to activate the service. Id.

The Terms and Conditions contained , among other things, a detailed statement establishing the custome r’s liability to pay any applicable taxes. See Def.’s Mem. Ex. 2 at 6 ¶ 5.5; JS ¶ 19. Specifically, it represented that “[p]rices for the Services do not include any customs duties, sales, use, value added, excise , federal, state, local, public utility or other similar taxes.” JS ¶ 19. Further, it stated that “[a]ll such taxes shall be paid by [the] End User and will be added to any amounts otherwise charged to [the] End User.” Finally, it noted that “[i]f any amounts paid for the Services by [the] End User are refunded by 8x8, applicable taxes may not be refundable.” Id.

After a customer signed up, 8x8 would bill the customer ’s credit card on a recurring basis each month until the customer cancelled service. See i d. ¶¶ 13, 22

– 24; Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Pl. ’s Mot. for Summ. J. (Pl.’s Mem.) at 4 , ECF No. 29

. 8x8’s customers could place both domestic and international calls. JS ¶¶ 5

– 6. Many customers’

s ervice plans allowed them to make an essentially unlimited number of local and long
distance calls within the United States

— a service 8x8 call ed “domestic bundled telephone service.” 4 Id. ¶ ¶ 5

– 6, 21

. On the other hand , s ome customers enroll ed in “usage based” plans

. Id. ¶ 5. These plans entitled customers to a set number of minutes of service
each month at a set rate. Id. If they exceeded their set number of minutes, 8x8 would bill
them later. Id. ¶ 13.

8x8 ’s customers had online access to month ly invoices detailing their charges

. Id. ¶ 24

. C ustomers ’ invoices i ncluded their service fee for the upcoming month an d any charge s for international calls made during the previous month

. Id. ¶ 23. C ustomers with

usage based plans who exceeded their plan a mounts were also invoiced for the additional
minutes they had used the previous month

. I d. ¶¶ 13, 23. In addition to the se service

-

3 VoIP calls from one 8x8 customer to another remained inside 8x8’s network and were
not handed off to the carriers. See Def.’s Mem. Ex. 5 at 14.

4 While the parties’ stipulation describes the monthly domestic calling plans as “unlimited,” it also states that “the amount of service was limited to reasonable personal use within the one month period fo r which service had been prepaid.” JS ¶ 21.5

related charges, t he monthly invoices “separately stated” the “[FCET] applicable to the telephone service used by the customer that month.” Id. ¶ 25.

III. 8x8’s FCET Payments and Its Claims in This Case

Between March 1, 2003, and July 30, 2006, 8x8 remitted to the government more than $1 million in FCET taxes related to its VoIP services

. JS ¶ 7. During th is period, 8x8
also filed exemption certificates under I.R. C. § 4253(f) with the c arriers from wh ich it purchased bulk phone service, Level 3 Communications , LLC, and Global Crossing

. 5 Id. ¶ 11. Accordingly, those companies did not collect any FCET payments from 8x8

. See
id. ; Def.’s M em. at 1.

In August 2010, 8x8 filed an amended tax return for 2006 requesting a refund of
the FCET it h ad remitted

. Compl. ¶ 22. The IRS asked 8x8 for additional information and

e ventually denied the bulk of 8x8’s refund request in July 2011. Id. ¶¶ 23

– 28. 8x8 administratively appealed the decision without success. Id. ¶¶ 29

– 35. It then filed its
refund cla im in this Court on July 17, 2013. ECF No. 1. After engaging in discovery, the parties filed a joint stipulation of facts, ECF No. 26, followed by cross

- motions f or summary judgment, ECF Nos

. 29, 40. The cross

- motions were argued on February 9, 2016, and are now ripe for decision.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over “any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in
tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). It is well established that this jurisdictional grant extends to
suits for the refund of taxes remitted to the Treasury. Ledford v. United States , 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Ont. Power Generation v. United States , 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Shore v. United States , 9 F.3d 1524, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

This Court’s exercise of that jurisdiction is subject, howeve r, to I.R. C. § 7422(a),
which requires that the taxpayer file a timely refund claim with the IRS before bringing a
civil action . After filing a claim with the IRS, the taxpayer must wait at least six months before filing a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims (unless the IRS disallows the
claim sooner )

. Id. § 6532. In this case, it is undisputed that 8x8 has met these exhaustion requirements

. See Compl. ¶¶ 23

– 35 ; JS ¶ 3. The Court therefore has jurisdiction over 8x8’s tax refund suit

.

5 I.R.C. § 4253(f) creates an exemption for “t he amount paid for any toll telephone
service

. . . to the extent that the amount so paid is for use by a common carrier, telephone or telegraph company, or radio bro adcasting station or network in the conduct of its
business as such. ”6

II. The Parties’ C ross
- Motions for Summary Judgment

A. Standard for Summary Judgment

The standards for granting summary judgment are well established. The Court may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgmen t as a matter of law. Rules of the Court of Federal Claims 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247

– 5 2 (1986). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson

, 477 U.S. at 248. An issue is genuine if it “may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Id. at 250.

The moving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all significant doubts regarding factu al issues must be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United
States , 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The fact that both parties have moved for summary judgment does not mean that the court must gran t judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other; summary judgment in favor of either party is not proper if disputes remain as to material facts.” Id. at 1391. Further, the court should act with caution in granting summary judgment and may deny sum mary judgment “where there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial.” Anderson , 477
U.S. at 255.

In this case, the material facts have been stipulated by the parties and are not in dispute . The sole issues before the Court are legal ones. Thus

, the case is ripe for summary judgment.

B. Merits

1. Standing to Secure Refund as Tax Collector

The first issue presented on the cross

- motions for summary judgment is whether

, as the government contends, 8x8 is precluded from s eek ing a refund of the excise taxes it
remitted to the IRS by virtue of the conditions that I.R .C. § 6415( a) imposes upon requests for refunds by persons who act as tax collectors . That provision states as
follows:

Credit or refund of any overpayment of ta x imposed by section
4251

. . . may be allowed to the person who collected the tax and paid it to the Secretary if such person establishes, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, that he has repaid the amount of such tax to the person from whom he collected it, or obtains the consent of such person to
the allowance of such credit or refund.

I.R.C. § 6415(a)

.
Thus, p ursuant to s ection 6415(a)

, a tax collector may not secure a refund of taxes it collected from a taxpayer and remitted to the IRS on their behalf where it has neither7

repaid the taxpayer nor obtained the taxpayer’s consent. The purpose of the provision is

“ to preclude what would otherwise result in unjust enrichment .” Gumpert v. United
States , 296 F.2d 927, 929 (Ct. Cl. 1961) ; se e also Locus Telecomms

. , Inc. v. United
States , 99 Fed. Cl. 641, 649 (2011) (purpose of § 6415(a) is “ to insure that the person applying for a refund has not already billed those for whom it paid the tax ”). Therefore,

to secure a tax refund, a plaintiff mu st show either “that they have complied with the provisions of the statute . . . or that they have borne the economic burden of the tax

. ” Gumpert , 296 F.2d at 929; see also Epstein v. United States , 357 F.2d 928, 937 (Ct. Cl. 1966) ( “ [R] ecovery [of a tax refund] may be had only if [the] plaintiff can show that he
himself ha [s] borne the economic burden of the taxes by paying them out of his own pocket and ha [s] not collected them from members

. ”)

.

“ Whether or not plaintiff bore the economic burden [of the tax] is a factual question .” Epstein

, 357 F.2d at 937 . In this case, the undisputed facts establish that 8x8
did not bear the economic burden of the tax es it remitted to IRS ; indeed, 8x8 does not seriously argue otherwise. Thus, the T erms and Conditions of 8x8’s agreement with its

customers explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that the customer, and not 8x8 , was responsible for paying the excise tax

. See JS ¶ 19 . Specifically, the Terms and Conditions
stated that “[p]rices for the Services do not include any customs duties, sales, use, value added, excise, federal, state, local, public utility or other similar taxes

, ” and that “[a]ll
such taxes s hall be paid by [the] End User

. ” Id. Likewise, 8x8 listed the tax as a separate charge on its customers’ monthly invoices

. Id. ¶ 25.

These facts alone are sufficient to establish that 8x8 did not bear the economic
burden of the tax es it remitted to the IRS

. See Gumpert , 296 F.2d at 929 (operator of a
tour business acte d as a collector where tickets for the tours “ reflected the tax, in that there was a place for the price of the tour and a place for the amount of the tax ”); Westside Cellular, Inc. v. United States , 57 3 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 100 7 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (provider of cellular services that “ billed its customers for the excise tax on monthly billing statements ” acted as a collector)

. And in this case there is additional evidence that
8x8 was a tax collector because it represented to the ca rriers from which it bought bu lk phone service that it was exempt fr om paying the tax under I.R.C. § 4253(f) because it provided telephone service in the course of its business

. See JS ¶ 11. As the government correctly observes , these claims of exemption run counter to an assertion by 8x8 that it paid the tax itself. Def.’s Mem. at 11

– 12 ; see also Westside Cellular

, 573 F. Supp. 2d at
100 7 (filing exemption cert ificates with carriers indicated that cellular service provider acted as a collector).

In short, the undisputed facts show that 8x8 did not bear the economic burden of
the tax payments it remitted to the IRS but was instead a “person who collected” the
FCET under I.R. C. § 6415(a). Therefore, because it did not repay the tax to its customers or get their consent to request a r efund , 8x8 lacks standing to request a refund of those

taxes

.8 2. 8x8’s Arguments

Notwithstanding that it did not bear the economic burden of the taxes it remitted

to the IRS , 8x8 a rgues that it may obtain a refund of the taxes it collected from its

customers on the grounds that it bore “the legal incidence of the tax” as a “transferee reseller” of prepaid telephone card (PTC) services under Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4

. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def’s Cross

- Mot. for Summ. J. a nd Reply to Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. (Pl.’s Reply) at 12

– 16, ECF No. 41. Further, a ccording to 8x8

, guidance that the IRS
issued in the wake of the circuit court decisions described above confirm s that

, because it was liable to pay the tax as the transfe ree reseller of such services , it was entitled to secure the refund of the wrongfully paid FCET. See id. ( citing I.R.S. Notice 2006

- 50 (guidance); I.R.S. Notice 2007

- 11, 2007

- 5 I.R.B. 405

– 09 (expanding and clarifying on the guidance found in Notice 2006

- 50 ) )

. These contention s lack merit.

a. Legal Incidence of the Tax

T he applicable regulations specify that a “ prepaid tele phone card ” is a “card o r similar arrangement that permits its holder to obtain a fixed amount of communica tions services by means of a code (such as a personal identification number (PIN)) or other access device p rovided by the carrier and to pay for those services in advance.” See Treas. Reg § 49.4251

- 4 (b) ; se e a lso I.R.C. § 4251(d) (1), (3) (for purposes of applying excise tax “ in the ca se of communications services acquired by means of a prepaid telephone card ,” the term “ ‘ prepaid telephone card ’ means any card or any other similar arrangement which permits its holder to obtain communications services and pay for such
services in advance ”)

. The regulations further state that the “holder” of the PTC is a person who purchases it “other than for resale

, ” and that a “carrier” (a s defined by
reference to the Telecommunications Act ) is “any provider of telecommunications
services

. ” Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4(b) (refe rencing 47 U.S.C. § 153). They also specify
that a “transferee” is “the first person that is not a carrier to whom a PTC is transferred by
a carrier

, ” and that a “ transferee reseller ” is “a transferee that purchases a PTC for
resale.” I d. Finally, th e regulations impose liability for the FCET on the transferee

. 6 See
i d. § 49.4251

- 4(d)(1).

As discussed below, t he Court concludes that 8x8 is not a “transferee reseller” of “communications services acquired by means of a prepaid telephone card” because 8x8’s
customers did not receive their communications services by means of a PTC as defined in

6 Thus, in cases involving communications services acquired by means of a PTC, if a carrier (i.e., a service provider) sells a phone card directly to a holder (i.e., a consumer),
the ho lder/consumer is the transferee and pays the tax. But if the carrier sell s a phone
card to a transferee reseller (usually a wholesaler or distributor who purchases phone cards from a service provider at a discount and then sells them to consumers at face

v alue ), the transferee reseller (and not the holder/consumer) is liable for the tax and discharges its tax liability by paying the FCET to the carrier , which in turn remits the tax
to the IRS

. See Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4(d)(1) ; see also Westside Cellular

, 573 F. Supp.
2d at 1008.9

the regulations. Therefore, contrary to 8x8’s arguments, and consistent with its actions during the years in question, it never bore the legal incid ence of the excise tax.

To begin with

, 8x8’s customers d o not purchase a “fixed amount of
communication services” when they purchase “domestic bundled” VoIP service

. I n the

context of prepaid calling cards

, a “fixed amount” of communication services is pr ovided
in the form of a specific number of minutes of calling time that are made available to the

customer wh en the card is purchased (or re loaded)

. Thus , in the case of a prepaid phone
card

, the service provider bundle s together a specific amount of calli ng time purchased
fro m originating suppliers, set s the per

- minute rate , and assign s the PIN that allow s the

customer to access the calling time that they have purchased

. See Locus Telecomm s

. , 99
Fed. Cl. at 644 (explaining the nat ure of the prepaid phone card industry) ; Ramirez v. Dollar Phone Corp. , 668 F. Supp. 2d 448, 452 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (same)

.

8x8 , by contrast, provided its domestic bundled VoIP customers with “unlimited” calling time ( which it further characterized as equivalent to some unspecified amount of “reasonable personal use” within a one month period). JS ¶ 21. This arrangement appears to contemplate that customers will receive precisely the opposite of a “fixed” amount of
communication services , in that they are purchasing an essentially u nlimited amount of such services which may be accessed for a fixed period ( one month ) . Moreover, unlike a phone card , which must be replenished by an affirmative act of its holder, the communications services 8x8 provides are automatically renewed on a continuing basis
until service is cancelled

. 7 Thus, unlike a prepaid phone card , 8x8 did not offer its
domestic bundled VoIP service customer s a “fixed amount” of services within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4(b)

. 8

Next , as 8x8 conceded at oral argument, 8x8’s customers did not receive a “ code

or other access device ” from a carrier; instead

, 8x8 supplied both their codes and their

7 The Court notes that even if a customer’s credit card were declined at the beginning of the month, 8x8 did not terminat e the service for several weeks while it attempted to secure payment. See JS ¶ 18. This arrangement is also in consistent with the notion that 8x8’s customers were receiving a fixed amount of services on a “prepaid” basis in the same sense that holders of prepaid telephone cards do. Thus, in at least some circumstances, 8x8’s customers received communications servi ces for which they had not prepaid; such a result could never obtain with a prepaid telephone card.

8 The parties’ stipulation states that “ 8x8 offered business and residential ‘ unlimited ’ monthly domestic calling plans ,” and that “[t] he amount of service was limited to reasonable personal use within the one month period for which service had been prepaid. ” See JS ¶ 21. It further states that “[t] herefore, the unlimited plans provided a
fixed amount of prepaid VoIP domestic services. ” Id. To the extent that the parties intended to stipulate that a “fixed amount of services” was provided within the meaning
of Treas. Reg. § 49.4251

- 4(b) , that stipulation is of no effect because the parties cannot stipulate to a legal conclusion

. See Modeer v. United States , 18 3 Fed. App’x 975, 97 7 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Hegeman

- Harris & Co. v. United States , 194 Ct. Cl. 574, 581 (1971).10

access devices

. The Court is not persuaded by 8x8’s suggestion a t oral argument that the prepaid phone card regulati ons might nevertheless apply because the relevant phrase in § 49.4251

- 4(b)

— i.e., “ a code

. . . or other access device provided by the carrier”

— could be read disjunctively , with the phrase “provided by the carrier ” modifying “access device” but not “code.” See Oral Argument at 19:30

– 55 (Feb. 9, 2016). T his strained reading fails to account for the term “other,” which indicates that the referenced “code” or PIN is among several possible “access device[s] provided by the carrier.” Thus, the phrase plainly indi cates tha t the code that provides access to the communications service s must be supplied by the carrier

. See Lengerich v. Dep’t of Interior , 454 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ( “We construe a regulation

. . . by ascertaining its plain meaning.” (citing B owles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. , 325 U.S. 410, 414

– 15 (1945)) ).

Finally, 8x8’s service differed in material respects from a prepaid phone card because 8x8’s customers (u nlike purchasers of prepaid phone cards) had a continuing
business relationship wit h 8x8. The prepaid phone card regulations contemplate that prepaid cards will allow the ir holder s to make calls “without having to sign a contract with a telephone company and pay monthly bills.” Westside Cellular

, 573 F. Supp. 2d at 1008. Thus, when purchasing a prepaid phone card, a customer establishes no continuing
relatio nship with the service provider and must contact the service provid er again to buy
more time when the initial calling time that they purchased runs out.

8x8’s customers, by cont rast, agreed to 8x8’s extensive terms and conditions, were billed by 8x8 each month on an automatic basis , and were required to contact 8x8 only when the y wished to terminate the otherwise automatically renewing service. They also had to p urchase the domes tic Vo IP service as part of an overall package, which included items (such as international calls) that even 8 x8 concedes were billed to their
customers at the end of each month. The se circumstances provide further support for the Court’s conclusion that 8 x8’s terms of service did not constitute a “similar arrangement” to a prepaid phone card

. See Westside Cellular , 573 F. Supp. 2d at 1008

– 09 (holding that the prepaid phone card regulations did not apply where “customers had to sign contracts”
and the servi ce provider “sent its customers monthly bills that itemized the services,
inc luding the federal excise tax ” ). 9

9 I n its reply brief, 8x8 contend s that the existence of an ongoing relationship with its
customers does not indicate that its service was not a “similar arrangement” to a PTC because Congress intended that certain arrangements such as joint venture credit cards be treated as “similar arrangements,” and credit card companies maintain ongoing relationships with their customers. See Pl.’s Reply at 4

– 6. But, as the government points
out, in a joint venture credit card arrangement, the credit card company purchases phone
service from the carrier and then doles it out to its customers as a reward for using the
card. See Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def

. ’s Cross

- Mot. for Summ. J. at 16

– 17, ECF
No. 46. T hus, while the user and the credit card company have an ongoing relationship

, there is no ongoing relationship between the user and the telephone service provider, as
there is here.11 b. IRS Notice 2007

- 11

Finally

, and i n any event, even if 8x8 could be characterized as a “ transferee
reseller ” of communication services acquired through prepaid telephone cards, 8x8 would
still face the barrier that is imposed by I.R.C. § 6415(a) on tax collectors seeking a
refund

, as discussed above

. Thus, 8x8 has cited no authority for the proposition that a n entit y that did not bear the economic burden of a tax , but instead collected the tax payment from others, may secure a refund without meeting the requirements of section 6415(a) because it bore “the legal incidence” of the tax

. To the contrary, to secure a refu nd, a plaintiff must always show, at a minimum

, that the government is holding money that rightfully belongs to him or her . A s the Supreme Court noted in Lewis v. Reynolds

, refunds under the tax laws are limited to overpayments

. 284 U.S. 281 , 283 (1932). I t therefore follows that “ the ultimate question presented for decision, upon a claim for refund, is whether the taxpayer has overpaid his tax ; ” that “[t] he action to

recover on a claim for refund is in the nature of an action for money had and received ; ”
and

, therefore

, that “ it is incumbent upon the claimant to show that the United States has money which belongs to him

. ” Id. (emphasis supplied) (quoting Lewis v. Reynolds

, 48
F.2d 515 , 516 (10 th Cir. 1931 ) ) ; see also Stone v. White , 301 U.S. 532, 535 (1937 ) (observing that “[t] he statutes authorizing tax refunds and suits for their recovery are predicated upon the same equitable principles that underlie an action in assumpsit for money had and received ”)

.
As is readily apparent, the United States is not holding money that belongs to 8x8 because 8x8 never remitted any of its own moneys to the IRS. T he money that 8x8 remitted to the IRS belongs to its customers, from whom 8x8 collected it for purposes of having them (and not 8x8) pay the excise tax. In fact

, the parties have stipulated that “[a] majority of 8x8’s customers probably received refunds from the IRS of the [ F C ET ] that 8x8 collected from them during the period .” JS ¶ 27. Further, 8x8 executed Certificate s of Exemption and provided them to its carr iers precisely so that it would not have to pay any
excise taxes. Therefore, even assuming for purposes of argument that 8x8 had bor ne the legal incidence of the excise tax

, it lacks standing to request a refund of taxes that it never paid. See Westside Ce llular

, 573 F. Supp. 2d at 1008 (observing that even if plaintiff had provided services through a PTC, it would still lack standing to request a refund as a “transferee reseller” because it was undisputed that it never paid the excise tax and had
avoided d oing so by filing a Certificate of Exemption ).

8x8’s reliance upon IRS Notice 2007

- 11 for its argument that a transferee reseller may obtain the refund of a tax it did not actually pay is misplaced. See Pl. ’s Mem. at 14

– 16. Section 6 (c) of that Notice states as follows:

The transferee is the person liable for the tax paid on a PTC and thus generally is the person eligible to request a credit or refund of the tax it paid. The carrier is eligible to request a refund only if it meets the co nditions of section 5(d)(4) of Notice 2006

- 50 [which imposes the conditions for the refund of taxes to tax collectors that are set forth in section 6415(a)]. The holder is not liable for the tax and thus cannot request a credit or a refund.12

First, there is no conflict between this issuance and the principles set forth above. Thus, the Notice allows a transferee to request a refund only of a “tax it paid.” Even if 8x8 were able to persuade the Court that it was a transferee reseller of communications service s acquired through a PTC, that legal finding would not alter the critical fact that 8x8 did not pay the taxes whose refund it seeks; its customers did. Moreover, even if there were some ambiguity in the Notice, the Court would d ecline to read it in a manne r that would bring it into conflict with the aforementioned Supreme Court precedent or with section
6415

. Smith v. Brown , 35 F.3d 1516, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that regulations must be construed to avoid conflict with a statute if fairly possible ). 10

In short, the two Notice s ( 2007

- 11 and 2006

- 50) w ere intended to provide a process for seeking a refund of taxes wrongfully paid in light of a series of c ourt decisions rejecting IRS’s interpretation of what constitutes “toll telephone service” for

purpo ses of assessing the FCET

. The Notices set forth rules of general application ; they do not purport to create new refund request rights for tax collectors or others who did not bear the economic burden of paying the taxes in the first instance

. Therefore, w hether or not 8x8 is considered a provi der of pre paid telephone cards within the meaning of the regulations, it is not entitled to the refund it requests in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby DENIES 8x8’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the government’s cross

- motion. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Each party shall bear its own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

/ s/ Elaine D. Kaplan
ELAINE D. KAPLAN Judge

10 In addition, t o the extent that 8x8’s interpretatio n of the Notice conflicts with
section 6415, the statute, of course, would be controlling. See Caldera v. J.S. Alberici
Const. Co. , 153 F.3d 1381, 1383 n.** (Fed. Cir. 1998) (observing that “[s] tatutes trump conflicting regul ations ”).