H.R. 1002 (112th): Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011

Introduced:
Mar 10, 2011 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
Sponsor:
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA16]
Status:
Died (Passed House)
See Instead:
This bill was re-introduced as H.R. 2309 on Jun 11, 2013. See H.R. 2309 for current action on this subject.

The bill’s title was written by the bill’s sponsor. H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.

(About Ads | Go Ad-Free for $5)
Status

This bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress and was passed by the House on November 1, 2011 but was never passed by the Senate.

Progress
Introduced Mar 10, 2011
Referred to Committee Mar 10, 2011
Reported by Committee Jul 14, 2011
Passed House Nov 01, 2011
Cosponsors
236 cosponsors (158R, 78D) (show)
Committees

House Judiciary

Senate Finance

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

Full Title

To restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property.

Summary

No summaries available.

Text

Read Bill Text »

Last updated Nov 02, 2011.
10 pages

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

Citation

Click a format for a citation suggestion:

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.

11/1/2011--Passed House amended.
Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011 - Prohibits states or local governments from imposing any new discriminatory tax on mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property (i.e., cell phones) for five years after the enactment of this Act. Defines "new discriminatory tax" as a tax imposed on mobile services, providers, or property that is not generally imposed on, or that is generally imposed at a lower rate on, other types of services, providers, or property, unless such tax was imposed and actually enforced prior to the enactment of this Act. Amends the federal judicial code to grant jurisdiction to federal district courts to grant injunctive and other appropriate relief to prevent, restrain, or terminate any acts in violation of this Act. Requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study, throughout the five-year moratorium imposed by this Act, to determine how, and the extent to which, taxes on mobile services, providers, or property impact the costs consumers pay for mobile services and the extent to which such moratorium has any impact on the costs consumers pay for mobile services.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.

This summary can be found at http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr1002.

Background

According to House Report 112-188, the average combined state and local tax rate on wireless telecommunications services is significantly higher than the combined state and local sales tax rate imposed on the purchase of other goods and services.  The wireless industry and many state and local government groups agree that wireless tax reform is needed.

Summary

H.R. 1002 would prohibit state and local governments from imposing certain “new discriminatory taxes” on providers of wireless communications service (mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property, cell phones) for five years after enactment of the legislation.  The bill would define "new discriminatory tax" as a tax imposed on mobile services, providers, or property that is not generally imposed on, or that is generally imposed at a lower rate on, other types of services, providers, or property, unless such tax was imposed and actually enforced prior to the enactment of this Act.

The bill would also require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study examining the impact of the moratorium on consumers.

Cost

According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, enacting H.R. 1002 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.  Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or revenues.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

The bill contains the following citations to other parts of U.S. law:

United States Code

The United States Code is the compilation of permanent laws enacted by Congress. Temporary and other non-permanent laws do not appear in the United States Code. (About half of the United States Code is the law itself, called positive law. The other half is merely a compilation of the laws but has no legal significance.)