Opinion ID: 1895932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: tracfone is required to remit surcharges regardless of whether they are directly collected from customers

Text: TracFone's first two assignments of error are related. First, TracFone contends that it is impossible for it to collect surcharges directly from its customers. And second, TracFone contends that if it cannot collect a surcharge directly from its customers, it is not required to remit the surcharge. In that regard, TracFone relies on § 86-457(1), which provides in relevant part that a wireless carrier is not liable for any surcharge not paid by a customer. But § 86-457(1) imposes surcharges on wireless service customers except as otherwise provided . . . with respect to prepaid wireless service. And TracFone's argument is contrary to § 86-457(4), which expressly applies to prepaid wireless services and states that comparable surcharges should whenever possible . . . be collected from the users of such prepaid wireless services. In accordance with that, § 86-457(5) requires the Commission to develop methods for collection and remittance of such surcharges from wireless carriers offering prepaid wireless services. We have often said that when construing a statute, we must look to the statute's purpose and give to the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat it. [10] We look to the statutory objective to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose to be served. [11] And we construe statutes relating to the same subject matter together to maintain a sensible and consistent scheme, so that effect is given to every provision. [12] When this statute is read as a whole, it is apparent that § 86-457(1), upon which TracFone's argument depends, applies to postpaid wireless services, not prepaid wireless services. The evident purpose of providing that a wireless carrier is not liable for any surcharge not paid by a customer of postpaid wireless service is to relieve the wireless carrier of responsibility for surcharges owed by wireless customers who do not pay their bills. It was not intended to relieve a wireless carrier of responsibility for remitting surcharges assessed for wireless customers who pay their bills in advance. Instead, § 86-457(4) provides that surcharges should be collected from prepaid wireless customers whenever possible  language that clearly contemplates circumstances in which such direct collection is not possible. Nonetheless, the duty to remit those surcharges remains, pursuant to § 86-457(6), the responsibility of the wireless carrier. TracFone counters with an attempt to distinguish a duty to pay the surcharges with the duty to remit the surcharges. TracFone cites no authority for its rather novel interpretation of the word remit, nor are we aware of any. To remit money is simply to transmit or send it as payment. [13] The Legislature's use of the word remit to describe a wireless carrier's duty to ensure that the Commission receive the surcharges provides no basis for distinguishing between surcharges collected directly from postpaid wireless customers and surcharges assessed for prepaid wireless service. TracFone also relies on § 86-459, which requires wireless carriers to remit to the Commission the amounts collected pursuant to section 86-457. TracFone asserts that § 86-459 reveals the Legislature's intent to require a wireless carrier to remit only surcharges collected directly from customers. But § 86-459 is not limited to amounts collected from customers  it requires remittance of all amounts collected pursuant to section 86-457, which includes surcharges assessed on prepaid wireless customers pursuant to § 86-457(5). In sum, TracFone's argument is that if a wireless carrier is unable to collect a surcharge directly from a customer, the Legislature intended for neither the carrier nor the customer to pay it. This is contrary to the stated intent of the 911 Act, and to a commonsense reading of the statutory language. TracFone's choice of business model does not give it license to throw up its hands and pay nothing. Instead, the surcharge should be collected from a wireless carrier's prepaid customers whenever possible. [14] When that is not possible, a comparable surcharge will be assessed by the Commission, and the duty to remit that surcharge is the carrier's responsibility. [15] In this case, it is TracFone's, and TracFone's first and second assignments of error are without merit.