Legal Opinion
MCI Airsignal, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 20, 1991No. A050006PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DOSSEE, J.
This appeal presents an issue of first impression in California: whether the Sales and Use Tax Law applies to receipts from the furnishing of paging devices in conjunction with telephone paging services. We conclude it does not.
Facts
During the years involved in this appeal, 1974-1981, MCI Airsignal, Inc., (hereafter MCI) was in the business of providing telephone paging services. Each customer was assigned a specific telephone number purchased by MCI from the local telephone company. To reach the customer, a caller dialed the customer’s telephone number from any telephone.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Culligan Water Conditioning of Bellflower, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Xerox Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
- City of Gilroy v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Nashville Mobilphone Co., Inc. v. WoodsTennessee Supreme Court · 1983
- General Business Systems, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Navistar International Transportation Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- MODERN PAINT & BODY SUPPLY, INC. v. State Bd. of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Boggero v. South Carolina Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2015
- Navistar International Transportation Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994