Tax Schemes and your Wallet / Bet you didn't know....... Benefit Theory Taxes
If the legislature really wants to fund these programs then they need to have the testicular fortitude to stand up to the Fed, end the abuse of the commerce clause, and tell them "no more soup for you" Some things this bill touts are already provided for in other programs, this is just another example of replacing something that works with something that sounds good.
Following is some research I have done regarding this same tax scheme at the federal level.
The unique Federal excise tax placed on ammunition, archery products, and firearms is taking significant revenue from the States in the form of a Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET).
This tax is collected as a “
benefit theory tax” for the purpose of establishing a Wildlife Restoration Fund and according to the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects. The State has to “opt in” to receive Federal monies.
§ 669b-1. Authorization of appropriation of accumulated unappropriated receipts
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of the Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund established by this chapter, for the 1956 fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, an amount equal to 20 per centum of the accumulated unappropriated receipts in such fund on August 12, 1955, until the accumulated unappropriated receipts in such fund on such date have been appropriated and expended. Funds appropriated under the authority of this section shall be made available to the States in accordance with the provisions of, and under the apportionment formula set forth in, this chapter, and shall be in addition to the funds appropriated under section 669b of this title.
§ 669f. Payment of funds to States
If a State has elected to avail itself of the benefits of this chapter by preparing a comprehensive fish and wildlife plan as provided for under option (1) of subsection (a) of section 669e of this title, and this plan has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, then the Secretary may, in his discretion, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, advance funds to the State for financing the United States pro rata share agreed upon between the State fish and game department and the Secretary.
The total number of handguns sold in Washington State in 2010 was 113,679 this does not reflect any other category, type, or class of firearm, nor does it include ammunition or other ancillary equipment such as bows and arrows subject to FAET. Handguns vary in price from $200.00 for a small caliber “plinker” to $1000.00 for the popular .45 caliber model 1911. Currently the Federal taxes imposed pistols and revolvers are at 10% of sales price while ammunition and other firearms are taxed at 11% of sale price. Using the nominal figure of $500.00., the Federal Government collected $5,683,950.00 from the sale of handguns in 2010. Washington State collected the appropriate sales tax.
Following data was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife with regard to Wildlife Restoration funding based on the Pitman Robertson Wildlife Act. The spreadsheet actually shows some information for grants open during the period form 2007-2010.
In the case of grants funded under the Pittman-Robertson Act, Wildlife Restoration funding the state share is typically 25% and the Federal share is 75% of the total cost of each grant. The Federal share cannot be over 75% for Pitman Robertson grants.
| Grant# | Segment Title | Start Date | Ending Date | Federal Share | State Share | Private Share | Total Cost | Final Payment | Closed Status Date |
| W-11-L-5 | Seed-Stock, Nesting Habitat Acquisition Project | 04/22/2002 | 06/30/2015 | $200,000.00 | $66,667.00 | $0.00 | $266.667.00 | N | Null |
| W-2-L-3 | Oak Creek Wildlife Area | 01/23/2009 | 01/23/2011 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | | |
| W-2-L-4 | Oak Creek Wildlife Area | 04/28/2009 | 06/30/2011 | $272,815.00 | $90,938.00 | $0.00 | $363,752.00 | | |
| W-41-D-57 | Habitat Development | 10/01/2007 | 06/30/2009 | $798,053.00 | $266,018.00 | $0.00 | $1,064,071.00 | Y | 13-Nov-2009 |
| W-41-D-58 | Habitat Development | 07/01/2009 | 06/30/2010 | $422,273.00 | $140,759.00 | $0.00 | $563,032.00 | Y | 24-Jan-2011 |
| W-41-D-59 | Habitat Development | 07/22/2010 | 06/30/2011 | $422,273.00 | $140,758.00 | $0.00 | $563,031.00 | N | NULL |
| W-42-L-57 | Statewide Lease of Lands | 07/01/2008 | 06/30/2009 | $385,281.00 | $128,427.00 | $0.00 | $513,708.00 | Y | 13-Nov-2009 |
| W-42-L-58 | Statewide Lease of Lands | 07/01/2009 | 06/30/2010 | $421,628.25 | $140,542.75 | $0.00 | $562,171.00 | Y | 24-Jan-2011 |
| W-42-L-59 | Statewide Lease of Lands | 07/15/2010 | 06/30/2011 | $429,148.00 | $143,049.00 | $0.00 | $572,197.00 | N | NULL |
| W-59-L-1 | Weyerhauser Company Property Acquisition (Johns River Game Range) | 06/17/2010 | 12/31/2010 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | N | NULL |
| W-83-HS-38 | Hunter Education | 07/01/2008 | 06/30/2009 | $858,321.00 | $286,107.00 | $0.00 | $1,144,428.00 | Y | 13-Nov-2009 |
| W-83-HS-39 | Hunter Education (Section 4 and 10) | 07/01/2009 | 06/30/2010 | $961,321.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $961,321.00 | Y | 24-Jan-2011 |
| W-83-HS-40 | Hunter Education (Section 4 and 10) | 07/01/2010 | 03/31/2012 | $1,296,334.00 | $19,500.00 | $0.00 | $1,315,834.00 | N | NULL |
| W-94-D-26 | Wildlife Area Program | 07/01/2008 | 06/30/2009 | $1,372,258.00 | $457,420.00 | $0.00 | $1,829,678.00 | Y | 13-Nov-2009 |
| W-94-D-27 | Wildlife Area Program | 07/01/2009 | 06/30/2010 | $1,372,258.00 | $457,419.00 | $0.00 | $1,829,677.00 | Y | 24-Jan-2011 |
| W-94-D-28 | Wildlife Area Program | 07/01/2010 | 06/30/2011 | $1,812,716.00 | $604,239.00 | $0.00 | $2,416,955.00 | N | NULL |
| W-96-R-17 | Statewide Wildlife Management | 07/01/2008 | 06/30/2010 | $6,319,247.00 | $2,106,416.00 | $0.00 | $8,425,663.00 | Y | 24-Jan-2011 |
| W-96-R-18 | Statewide Wildlife Management | 07/01/2010 | 06/30/2011 | $4,144,139.00 | $1,381,380.00 | $0.00 | $5,525,519.00 | N | NULL |
| W-98-E-10 | Hunter Education Shooting Range Program | 07/01/2010 | 09/30/2011 | $156,657.00 | $52,219.00 | $0.00 | $208,876.00 | N | NULL |
| W-98-E-8 | Hunter Education Shooting Range Program | 07/01/2008 | 09/30/2009 | $56,657.00 | $18,886.00 | $0.00 | $75,543.00 | Y | 03-Feb-2010 |
| W-98-E-9 | Hunter Education Shooting Range Program | 07/01/2009 | 06/30/2010 | $56,657.00 | $18,886.00 | $0.00 | $75,543.00 | Y | 24-Jan-2011 |
| W-99-L-1 | Wildlife Lands Conservation | 09/02/2010 | 06/30/2012 | $804,000.00 | $268,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,072,000.00 | N | NULL |
| | | | $22,562,036.25 | $6,787,630.75 | $0.00 | $29,349,667.00 | | |
Benefit Theory Taxes
Many present law excise taxes are imposed to distribute some or all of the cost of particular government expenditures among persons thought to benefit from them. About half of all excise tax receipts are benefit theory taxes. Proceeds from these taxes are typically dedicated to a trust fund so as to earmark the revenue for a particular purpose. Taxes supporting the Highway Trust Fund are the most familiar examples. Benefit theory excise taxes need to be distinguished from user fees.
User fees are imposed as part of a voluntary transaction between the government and a private person. Excise taxes arise from the exercise of a government’s sovereign power and are imposed on transactions between private persons, or on other taxable events to which private persons are a party. User fees are imposed on transactions between private persons and government entities, such as admission to a national park. The conceptual distinction is not always observed in practice. For example, the “fees” imposed beginning in FY 1991 on boat owners were not enacted as part of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and were treated as a user fee in the Budget even though no voluntary transaction occurred between boat owner and government agency. In another instance, the Code imposes an excise tax on the value of certain cargos to support the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
In terms of legislative process, the distinction between an excise tax and a user fee is of major significance. Constitutionally, tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, which in practical terms means that it must originate in the Committee on Ways and Means. Characterizing a legislatively determined payment to the federal government as a user fee permits committees of the Congress other than the tax-writing committees to assert jurisdiction. If unchallenged by the Committee on Ways and Means, or if successful in securing a ruling from the House Parliamentarian that the measure is not a tax, other committees of the Congress may be successful in enacting a user fee provision that, analytically, is no different than an excise tax. [SUP]1[/SUP]
END NOTES
[SUP]1 [/SUP]TAX EXPENDITURES IN THE FEDERAL EXCISE TAX SYSTEM
[SUP]National Tax Journal Vol. 47, no. 1, (March, 1994), pp. 39-62[/SUP]
~Whitney
