IB 
Union Calendar No. 122 
112TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1002 
[Report No. 112–188] 
To restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory 
tax on cell phone services, providers, or property. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MARCH 10, 2011 
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 
SMITH of Texas, Mr. COHEN, Mr. COBLE, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, 
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. HALL, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ACKER-
MAN, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. UPTON, Mr. PALLONE, 
Mr. STEARNS, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GUTIERREZ, 
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HOLDEN, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON 
of Texas, Mr. KING of New York, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, 
Mr. ROYCE, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. DOGGETT, 
Mr. DOYLE, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. JONES, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. LOBI-
ONDO, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mrs. 
MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PITTS, 
Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. 
SESSIONS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. BRADY of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. CHABOT, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. GONZALEZ, 
Mr. HOLT, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. WEINER, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CULBER-
SON, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. PLATTS, 
Mr. REHBERG, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. 
TIBERI, Mr. FORBES, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. SULLIVAN, 
Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BUR-
GESS, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. CARTER, Mr. COLE, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GER-
LACH, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KLINE, Mr. MURPHY of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 
BARROW, Mr. BOREN, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTA, Mr. 
DENT, Ms. FOXX, Mr. MCCAUL, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. MACK, 
Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. REICHERT, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. 
WESTMORELAND, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. SIRES, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. HELL-
ER, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SMITH of Ne-
braska, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. LATTA, Mr. WITTMAN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SCALISE, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LANCE, Mr. 
OLSON, Mr. PAULSEN, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. THOMPSON of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. OWENS, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. REED, Mr. FITZPATRICK, 
Mrs. ADAMS, Mr. BARLETTA, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. 
HANNA, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. LONG, Mr. MCKINLEY, 
Mrs. NOEM, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. 
BROUN of Georgia, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of Cali-
fornia, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkan-
sas, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. HINOJOSA) introduced the following bill; which 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
JULY 29, 2011 
Additional sponsors: Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. MARINO, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Ms. 
CLARKE of New York, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. 
WALSH of Illinois, Mr. TOWNS, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. BACA, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. 
PENCE, Mr. FLORES, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. 
MCCOTTER, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. HIGGINS, 
Mr. WU, Ms. BASS of California, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. GINGREY of Geor-
gia, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. HERGER, Mr. WEB-
STER, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. HASTINGS of Wash-
ington, Mr. CAMP, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mrs. MILLER of 
Michigan, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. FARENTHOLD, 
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. RIVERA, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, 
Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. WEST, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mrs. SCHMIDT, 
Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ISSA, 
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. GARDNER, 
Mr. GIBSON, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Mr. 
AUSTRIA, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. YODER, Mr. HURT, Mr. AL 
GREEN of Texas, Mr. DOLD, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. SOUTHERLAND, Mr. 
REYES, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. SAM JOHNSON 
of Texas, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. SEWELL, Ms. 
HAYWORTH, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HECK, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. 
MCKEON, Mr. LABRADOR, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. DENHAM, 
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. KELLY, and Mr. HONDA 
JULY 29, 2011 
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 10, 2011] 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
A BILL 
To restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing 
a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, pro-
viders, or property. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wireless Tax Fairness 
Act of 2011’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) It is appropriate to exercise congressional en-
forcement authority under section 5 of the 14th 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
and Congress’ plenary power under article I, section 
8, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States 
(commonly known as the ‘‘commerce clause’’) in order 
to ensure that States and political subdivisions there-
of do not discriminate against providers and con-
sumers of mobile services by imposing new selective 
and excessive taxes and other burdens on such pro-
viders and consumers. 
(2) In light of the history and pattern of dis-
criminatory taxation faced by providers and con-
sumers of mobile services, the prohibitions against 
and remedies to correct discriminatory State and 
local taxation in section 306 of the Railroad Revital-
ization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (49 
U.S.C. 11501) provide an appropriate analogy for 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
congressional action, and similar Federal legislative 
measures are warranted that will prohibit imposing 
new discriminatory taxes on providers and consumers 
of mobile services and that will assure an effective, 
uniform remedy. 
SEC. 3. MORATORIUM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—No State or local jurisdiction shall 
impose a new discriminatory tax on or with respect to mo-
bile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service 
property, during the 5-year period beginning on the date 
of enactment of this Act. 
(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 
(1) MOBILE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘mobile serv-
ice’’ means commercial mobile radio service, as such 
term is defined in section 20.3 of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enact-
ment of this Act, or any other service that is pri-
marily intended for receipt on, transmission from, or 
use with a mobile telephone or other mobile device, in-
cluding but not limited to the receipt of a digital 
good. 
(2) MOBILE
SERVICE
PROPERTY.—The term 
‘‘mobile service property’’ means all property used by 
a mobile service provider in connection with its busi-
ness of providing mobile services, whether real, per-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
lower rate, on or with respect to, or measured by 
the value of, other property that is devoted to a 
commercial or industrial use and subject to a 
property tax levy, except public utility property 
owned by a public utility subject to rate of re-
turn regulation by a State or Federal regulatory 
authority; 
unless such tax was imposed and actually enforced on 
mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile 
service property prior to the date of enactment of this 
Act. 
(5) STATE OR LOCAL JURISDICTION.—The term 
‘‘State or local jurisdiction’’ means any of the several 
States, the District of Columbia, any territory or pos-
session of the United States, a political subdivision of 
any State, territory, or possession, or any govern-
mental entity or person acting on behalf of such 
State, territory, possession, or subdivision that has 
the authority to assess, impose, levy, or collect taxes 
or fees. 
(6) TAX.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘tax’’ means a 
charge imposed by a governmental entity for the 
purpose of generating revenues for governmental 
purposes, and excludes a fee imposed on a par-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ticular entity or class of entities for a specific 
privilege, service, or benefit conferred exclusively 
on such entity or class of entities. 
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘tax’’ does not 
include any fee or charge— 
(i) used to preserve and advance Fed-
eral universal service or similar State pro-
grams authorized by section 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
254); or 
(ii) specifically dedicated by a State or 
local jurisdiction for the support of E–911 
communications systems. 
(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.— 
(1) DETERMINATION.—For purposes of sub-
section (b)(4), all taxes, tax rates, exemptions, deduc-
tions, credits, incentives, exclusions, and other similar 
factors shall be taken into account in determining 
whether a tax is a new discriminatory tax. 
(2) APPLICATION
OF
PRINCIPLES.—Except as 
otherwise provided in this Act, in determining wheth-
er a tax on mobile service property is a new discrimi-
natory tax for purposes of subsection (b)(4)(A)(iii), 
principles similar to those set forth in section 306 of 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
Act of 1976 (49 U.S.C. 11501) shall apply. 
(3) EXCLUSIONS.—Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this Act— 
(A) the term ‘‘generally imposed’’ as used in 
subsection (b)(4) shall not apply to any tax im-
posed only on— 
(i) specific services; 
(ii) specific industries or business seg-
ments; or 
(iii) specific types of property; and 
(B) the term ‘‘new discriminatory tax’’ 
shall not include a new tax or the modification 
of an existing tax that— 
(i) replaces one or more taxes that had 
been imposed on mobile services, mobile 
service providers, or mobile service property; 
(ii) is designed so that, based on infor-
mation available at the time of the enact-
ment of such new tax or such modification, 
the amount of tax revenues generated there-
by with respect to such mobile services, mo-
bile service providers, or mobile service 
property is reasonably expected to not ex-
ceed the amount of tax revenues that would 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
have been generated by the respective re-
placed tax or taxes with respect to such mo-
bile services, mobile service providers, or 
mobile service property; and 
(iii) is a local jurisdiction tax that 
may not be imposed without voter approval, 
provides for at least 90 days’ prior notice to 
mobile service providers, and is required by 
law to be collected from mobile service cus-
tomers. 
SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT. 
Notwithstanding any provision of section 1341 of title 
28, United States Code, or the constitution or laws of any 
State, the district courts of the United States shall have ju-
risdiction, without regard to amount in controversy or citi-
zenship of the parties, to grant such mandatory or prohibi-
tive injunctive relief, interim equitable relief, and declara-
tory judgments as may be necessary to prevent, restrain, 
or terminate any acts in violation of this Act. 
(1) JURISDICTION.—Such jurisdiction shall not 
be exclusive of the jurisdiction which any Federal or 
State court may have in the absence of this section. 
(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—The burden of proof in 
any proceeding brought under this Act shall be upon 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
the party seeking relief and shall be by a preponder-
ance of the evidence on all issues of fact. 
(3) RELIEF.—In granting relief against a tax 
which is discriminatory or excessive under this Act 
with respect to tax rate or amount only, the court 
shall prevent, restrain, or terminate the imposition, 
levy, or collection of not more than the discriminatory 
or excessive portion of the tax as determined by the 
court. 
SEC. 5. GAO STUDY. 
(a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United 
States shall conduct a study, throughout the 5-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, to deter-
mine— 
(1) how, and the extent to which, taxes imposed 
by local and State jurisdictions on mobile services, 
mobile service providers, or mobile property, impact 
the costs consumers pay for mobile services; and 
(2) the extent to which the moratorium on dis-
criminatory mobile services taxes established in this 
Act has any impact on the costs consumers pay for 
mobile services. 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 6 years after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
submit, to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:35 Jul 30, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6203
E:\BILLS\H1002.RH
H1002
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS