Message Center Management, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MESSAGE CENTER MANAGEMENT, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES (SC 17785) Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued May 15 officially released June 19, 2007 Paul M. Scimonelli, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellant (defendant). Charles H. Lenore, with whom, on the brief, was Daniel J. Foster, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, the commissioner of revenue services, appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the tax appeal, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 12-422,2 of the plaintiff, Message Center Management, Inc. The defendant contends that the trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiff s business activities do not constitute taxable [s]ervices within the meaning of General Statutes § 12407 (a) (37) (I).3 Message Center Management, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 50 Conn. Sup. , , A.2d (2006). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The plaintiff, a developer and operator of wireless communication sites, is in the business of identifying geographical areas without wireless coverage, constructing wireless towers or antennas to service those areas, and marketing that infrastructure to wireless carriers. To that end, the plaintiff contracts with property owners for the exclusive rights to construct and maintain the requisite equipment. Typically, these management agreements appoint the plaintiff as the exclusive managing agent for the property owner in exchange for a percentage of any licensing revenue that the plaintiff collects from sublicensing wireless carriers. Having determined that the foregoing business activities constituted taxable management services to industrial, commercial or income producing property, the defendant assessed sales and use tax against the plaintiff, which appealed that assessment to the trial court. On appeal, the trial court examined the meaning of the word management in the context of the nature of the services being rendered, and not what those services are called or termed by the service provider or service recipient . . . . Id., . Comparing the plaintiff s business activities with those of traditional retail and residential property managers, the court found that the dominant economic characteristic of the transaction between the plaintiff and the property owner is the development by the plaintiff, at its own expense and risk, of a portion of an owner s property into a wireless communication site for the benefit of wireless carriers. Id., . Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiff s business activities were not taxable management services within the meaning of § 12-407 (a) (37) (I), and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal followed. Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The central issue of the applicability of the sales and use tax to the plaintiff s activities was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision filed by the trial court. See id. Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt the trial court s well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on that issue. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See Lagassey v. State, 281 Conn. 1, 5, 914 A.2d 509 (2007); Mattera v. Civil Service Commission, 273 Conn. 235, 239, 869 A.2d 637 (2005). The judgment is affirmed. 1 The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. 2 General Statutes § 12-422 provides in relevant part: Any taxpayer aggrieved because of any order, decision, determination or disallowance of the Commissioner of Revenue Services under section 12-418, 12-421 or 12425 may, within one month after service upon the taxpayer of notice of such order, decision, determination or disallowance, take an appeal therefrom . . . . 3 General Statutes § 12-407 (a) provides in relevant part: Whenever used in this chapter . . . (37) Services for purposes of subdivision (2) of this subsection, means . . . (I) Services to industrial, commercial or income-producing real property, including, but not limited to, such services as management, electrical, plumbing, painting and carpentry . . . .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
