92.089. Findings of general assembly — immunity for telecommunications companies, when.
575 words·~3 min read·
/mo/chapter-92/92-089A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
92.089. Findings of general assembly — immunity for telecommunications companies, when. — 1. The general assembly finds and declares it to be the policy of the state of Missouri that costly litigation which have or may be filed by Missouri municipalities against telecommunications companies, concerning the application of certain business license taxes to certain telecommunications companies, and to certain revenues of those telecommunications companies, as set forth below, is detrimental to the economic well being of the state, and the claims of the municipal governments regarding such business licenses have neither been determined to be valid nor liquidated.
The general assembly further finds and declares that the resolution of such uncertain litigation, the uniformity, and the administrative convenience and cost savings to municipalities resulting from, and the revenues which will or may accrue to municipalities in the future as a result of the enactment of sections 92.074 to 92.095 are full and adequate consideration to municipalities, as the term "consideration" is used in Article III, Section 39
(5)of the Missouri Constitution, for the immunity and dismissal of lawsuits outlined in subsection 2 of this section.
2. In the event any telecommunications company, prior to July 1, 2006, failed to pay any amount to a municipality based on a subjective good faith belief that either:
(1)It was not a telephone company covered by the municipal business license tax ordinance, or the statute authorizing the enactment of such taxing ordinance, or did not provide telephone service as stated in the business license tax ordinance, and therefore owed no business license tax to the municipality; or
(2)That certain categories of its revenues did not qualify under the definition or wording of the ordinance as gross receipts or revenues upon which business license taxes should be calculated;
such a telecommunications company is entitled to full immunity from, and shall not be liable to a municipality for, the payment of the disputed amounts of business license taxes, up to and including July 1, 2006. However, such immunity and release from liability shall not apply to any business license tax imposed in accordance with subdivisions
(1)and
(2)of subsection 10 of section 92.086 or sections 92.074 to 92.095 after July 1, 2006. If any municipality, prior to July 1, 2006, has brought litigation or caused an audit of back taxes for the nonpayment by a telecommunications company of municipal business license taxes, it shall immediately dismiss such lawsuit without prejudice and shall cease and desist from continuing any audit, except those cities described in subsection 10 of section 92.086 .
--------
(L. 2005 H.B. 209)
(2006)Subsection 10 of section 92.086 is a special law prohibited under subdivision (30), Section 40, Article III, Constitution of Missouri. Under the nonseverability clause in section 92.092, RSMo, sections 92.074, 92.077, 92.080, 92.083, 92.086, and 92.089 are invalid in their entirety. City of Springfield v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 203 S.W.3d 177 (Mo.).
(2019)A statute is not a local or special law under Article III, Section 40 of the Missouri Constitution if the criteria for a class is supported by a rational or reasonable basis. Prior court analysis, which shifted the burden of proof to the party defending a statute’s constitutionality and required the showing of substantial justification for that statute, has no basis in Article III, Sections 40 through 42, and should no longer be followed. City of Aurora v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, 592 S.W.3d 764 (Mo.banc).