In the False Claims Act case involving Sprint that is proceeding to trial after the Court of Appeals denied Sprint’s motion to dismiss the case (see November 2015 issue of New York Tax Insights), Sprint requested production of any documents concerning the critical issue, which involves the Department’s claim that Sprint improperly “unbundled” wireless package offerings to avoid collecting tax on fixed monthly charges for wireless telephone calls. Sprint requested internal documents and communications with third parties, such as other telecommunication companies, claiming the documents are directly relevant and that the Attorney General has put in issue the practices of other communications companies and their correspondence with the Department by alleging that Sprint’s primary competitors collected and paid sales tax on the charges at issue. While the Department has claimed the documents are protected by the Tax Secrecy provisions of Tax Law § 1146, Sprint argues that the Tax Secrecy provisions only protect tax returns and materials disclosed in such returns, but do not extend to any documents that happen to contain information that also appears in a return, including the mere fact that a return was filed. People of the State of New York v. Sprint Communications, Inc., Index No. 103917/2011, Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel (filed Apr. 8, 2016). Separately, Sprint's petition for review, contending that the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act, 4 U.S.C. 123(b), is pending before the United States Supreme Court. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al. v. State of New York, et al., Docket No. 15-1041 (filed Feb. 18, 2016).