I 
111TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1019 
To prohibit discrimination in State taxation of multichannel video 
programming distribution services. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. 
JORDAN of Ohio) 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 Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Video Tax Fair-
ness Act of 2009’’. 
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 
No State shall impose a discriminatory tax on any 
means of providing multichannel video programming dis-
tribution services, including Internet protocol technology 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
03:23 Feb 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1019.IH
H1019
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
(or any successor protocol), direct broadcast satellite deliv-
ery, 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 multi-
channel video service is higher than the net tax rate im-
posed 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 reve-
nues 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 cus-
tomers 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 condi-
tion related to, the acquisition of a property right or 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
03:23 Feb 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1019.IH
H1019
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
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 im-
posed the obligation on, or collected the obliga-
tion from, the service provider or its customers; 
(B) the State abolished or limited the obli-
gation; 
(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, 2008. Nothing in this 
section shall preclude any such tax from being ruled dis-
criminatory or otherwise illegal on any basis other than 
the prohibition contained in this Act and nothing in this 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
03:23 Feb 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1019.IH
H1019
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
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 accept-
able. It is the sense of Congress that such discrimination 
effectively stifles competition to the detriment of all con-
sumers, and that states that have adopted discriminatory 
regimes should repeal them forthwith, even if not obligated 
to do so under this Act. 
Æ 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
03:23 Feb 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H1019.IH
H1019
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS