Porterville Recorder

The Board of Equalizati­on got the last laugh on a gas tax increase

- Jon Coupal is the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Associatio­n.

In a normal universe, the rejection of a gas tax increase by a state agency would be based primarily on policy grounds. But in a strange mix of wonkish tax policy, political turf fighting and revenge, California drivers will be spared — temporaril­y — from a 4 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline.

On Feb. 27, the Board of Equalizati­on was expected to approve a routine request by the governor’s Department of Finance to raise the tax. But it did not. As a result, the state treasury will miss out on a little more than $600 million (much to the relief of California drivers, however).

Because California already has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation, citizens may not care one bit about why the Board of Equalizati­on rejected the tax increase. But understand­ing how this happened is an object lesson in the strangenes­s that is California. It begins with the “gas tax swap.” In 2010, Gov. Arnold Schwarzene­gger signed into law two fuel tax measures commonly referred to as the gas tax swap, which adjusted the rates of the sales and excise tax on gasoline. (The excise tax is a “gallonage” tax based on the amount of gas purchased). The fuel tax swap legislatio­n was designed to be “revenue neutral,” meaning the total taxes paid at the pump would not increase because of the change in the law.

But ensuring that the gas tax swap was actually revenue neutral required some backward-looking calculatio­ns, because the price of gasoline can greatly fluctuate. In short, the state had to determine how much sales taxes would have been collected had the law not been changed and then adjust the excise tax in an attempt to even things out. Yes, it’s weird, and the reason they did this is beyond the scope of this column.

For the last several years, the Board of Equalizati­on was tasked with making that annual adjustment after receiving a recommenda­tion from the California Department of Finance. That annual adjustment has always been viewed as routine and non-controvers­ial.

All that changed last year because of two notable events: First, a massive increase in the gas tax and, second, a turf battle between the legislatur­e and the Board of Equalizati­on.

When the legislatur­e enacted the infamous Senate Bill 1 raising the gas tax to a stratosphe­ric level, which taxpayers are now trying to undo with an initiative measure, it also took away the Board of Equalizati­on’s authority to make the annual adjustment. The adjustment that was to occur last month was to be the last exercise of that authority by the board.

In the meantime, progressiv­es in the legislatur­e were increasing their criticism of the Board of Equalizati­on which they viewed as being a bit too sympatheti­c to taxpayers. (The Board of Equalizati­on is the only popularly elected tax board in the nation and would actually give taxpayers a fair hearing when there are disputes over tax liability of individual­s and businesses.)

In recent years, the Board of Equalizati­on has endured a few minor (by Sacramento standards) scandals involving office space and political activity. The Legislatur­e then saw these issues as an opportunit­y to pounce and deprive the Board of Equalizati­on of the bulk of its authority, shifting much of its responsibi­lities to a new bureaucrac­y-driven California Department of Tax and Fee Administra­tion that has no direct political accountabi­lity.

It is with that background that members of the Board of Equalizati­on, including one Democrat, refused to adjust upward the gas excise tax, an otherwise ministeria­l act. And although the members who spoke against the increase cast their positions as looking out for California taxpayers, no one who has observed the Board of Equalizati­on over several years missed the real message being delivered to the Legislatur­e. The board’s decision leaves the fuel excise tax at 29 cents per gallon, instead of 33 cents, for another year unless the legislatur­e finds a clever way to bypass the process.

When one considers all the machinatio­ns of politics and the manner in which legislatio­n is enacted, it’s no wonder people refer to the California Legislatur­e as a sausage factory. Actually, that’s an insult to sausage factories.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States