Halo Wireless should pay the full value of the taxes...
Halo Wireless should pay the full value of the taxes assessed on its equipment in Arkansas despite the company’s petition in protest of the assessment, the Arkansas Public Service Commission tax division recommended to the Arkansas PSC in a Wednesday…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
filing. “The Tax Division denies all allegations in the [Halo] petition not specifically admitted in this response and denies that Halo is entitled to any relief,” the tax division said (http://xrl.us/bnhbeb). Halo filed a petition to review the tax assessment July 11. In the petition, Halo says it only has telecom and routing equipment in Arkansas and says it’s worth far less than the assessed value of $300,000. “The assessed value of the Equipment according to the Ad Valorem Assessment received was $300,000, but the original equipment cost was only $42,785,” Halo wrote in its petition. “The Equipment is no longer new and could not be replaced for the same cost.” Halo estimated the equipment is now worth only $5,000 to $10,000, the petition said. In its recommendation, the PSC tax division notes “Halo failed to submit an annual report to the Tax Division as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 26-26-1602 and Ark. Code Ann. § 26-26-1603” and that “when no report is filed, the Tax Division shall inform itself as best it can.” “Halo has the burden of proving any flaws in its assessment,” said the PSC tax division, which “requests that the Commission deny the petition for review.” In response to the tax division filing, Halo Wireless Chief Operations Officer Russell Wiseman told us all the Arkansas equipment as well as labor in the state cost well under $50,000, that it doesn’t rise in value, and that he has no idea how the $300,000 figure was obtained, saying it has no basis in any economic reality.