Highway Financing
Factors Affecting Highway Funding Fluctuations and Revenue Trends Gao ID: GAO-02-527T March 20, 2002The Highway Trust Fund "guarantees" specific annual funding levels for most highway programs on the basis of projected receipts to the fund. It also makes annual adjustments to these funding levels on the basis of actual receipts and revised projections of trust fund revenue. These adjustments are called the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA). GAO concludes that the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation appears reasonable. Although the RABA adjustment is clearly severe, it reflects the many ways in which an economic downturn affects the calculation. In late January 2002, the administration announced that the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment would be a negative $4.965 billion. Within a few days of the announcement, the administration reported that an error had been made and the correct amount was a negative $4.369 billion--a $600 million difference. Treasury is taking steps to improve its internal controls in order to prevent this type of error from reoccurring. The use of ethanol blended fuel instead of gasoline reduces Highway Trust Fund revenue because it is partially exempt from the standard excise tax on gasoline and 2.5 cents of the tax received on each gallon of gasohol sold is transferred to the General Fund. Gasohol use is projected to rise and the impact of these tax provisions will grow as well. The RABA adjustment could be changed in several ways to help reduce fluctuations in highway funding. However, Congress and the administration must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of these and other ways to stabilize highway funding and increase Highway Trust Fund revenues.
GAO-02-527T, Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway Funding Fluctuations and Revenue Trends
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-527T
entitled 'Highway Financing: Factors Affecting Highway Funding
Fluctuations and Revenue Trends' which was released on March 20, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback.
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives:
Not to be Released Before 2:00 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, March 20, 2002:
Highway Financing:
Factors Affecting Highway Funding Fluctuations and Revenue Trends:
Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-02-527T:
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on important Highway
Trust Fund issues. Our statement today is based on our recent reports,
our ongoing work on the impact of alternative and replacement fuels on
the Highway Trust Fund, and our review of the fiscal year 2003 Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority adjustment.[Footnote 1] As you know, the
Highway Trust Fund is the principal mechanism for funding federal
highway programs authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 ’guaranteed“ specific annual funding
levels for most highway programs on the basis of projected receipts to
the Highway Trust Fund and provided for annual adjustments to these
funding levels based on actual receipts and revised projections of
trust fund revenue. These adjustments are referred to as the Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority or RABA. In fiscal year 2003, for the first
time, the RABA adjustment is negative”decreasing the guaranteed level
of highway funding by $4.369 billion. Consequently, the highway
funding level for fiscal year 2003 will be over $8 billion lower than
the fiscal year 2002 level.
Concerned about the significant drop in highway funding due to the RABA
adjustment, you asked us to assess the fiscal year 2003 RABA
calculation. Additionally, you expressed concerns about the amount of
future revenue forgone by the Highway Trust Fund due to gasohol usage
and asked about ways to increase revenues into the trust fund. In
response, our statement discusses (1) the reasonableness of the fiscal
year 2003 RABA calculation; (2) the $600 million error in the initial
RABA adjustment released by the administration; (3) the impact of
gasohol usage on the Highway Trust Fund; and (4) ways to reduce
fluctuations in the RABA adjustment and industry proposals to increase
Highway Trust Fund revenue. (See appendix I for information on our
objectives, scope, and methodology.)
In summary:
* The fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation appears reasonable based on the
information we reviewed. While the RABA adjustment is clearly severe,
it largely is a reflection of the multiple ways a downturn in the
economy affects the calculation. The RABA calculation consists of
’look back“ and ’look ahead“ components. About 80 percent of the
fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment is attributable to the ’look back“
portion of the RABA calculation, which compares the actual Highway
Account receipts for fiscal year 2001 to the projections of receipts
for fiscal year 2001 included in TEA-21 plus an adjustment for the
RABA calculation made for that year. Our review shows that the amounts
distributed to the Highway Trust Fund for the first 9 months of fiscal
year 2001 were reasonable and adequately supported on the basis of
available information. The remaining 20 percent of the fiscal year
2003 RABA adjustment is due to the ’look ahead“ portion of the
calculation, which compares the Department of Treasury‘s (Treasury)
projection of Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2003 with the
projection of receipts for that year contained in TEA-21. Although we
did not independently evaluate the methodology and the economic models
Treasury used to develop its revenue projections, our review of a
qualitative description of the process, key inputs, and changes to the
models gave us no reason to question the resulting projections.
Similarly, our comparison of projections prepared by Treasury and the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did not lead us to question the
projections used for the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation.
* In late January 2002, the administration announced that the fiscal
year 2003 RABA adjustment would be a negative $4.965 billion. Within a
few days of the announcement, the administration reported that an
error had been made and that the correct amount was a negative $4.369
billion”a $600 million difference. The error occurred in Treasury‘s
allocation of projected highway tax revenues to the various accounts
that receive them, rather than in Treasury‘s economic models for
projecting such revenues. Treasury did not detect the error until
after the RABA adjustment had been released to the public and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had made its initial
calculations for distributing funds to the states. Treasury is taking
steps to improve its internal controls in order to prevent this type
of error from occurring again.
* The use of ethanol blended fuel (gasohol) instead of gasoline reduces
Highway Trust Fund revenue because it is partially exempt from the
standard excise tax on gasoline (18.4 cents) and 2.5 cents of the tax
received on each gallon of gasohol sold is transferred to the General
Fund.[Footnote 2] Based on our ongoing work, our preliminary estimates
show that the Highway Account did not receive about $6.01 billion (in
constant 2001 dollars) from fiscal years 1998 through 2001 due to
these tax provisions. Further, gasohol use is projected to increase
and thus the impact of these tax provisions will grow as well. Using
Treasury‘s projections of gasohol tax receipts, we estimate that the
Highway Account will forgo an additional $13.72 billion (in constant
2001 dollars) due to the partial tax exemption from fiscal years 2002
through 2012. We also estimate that the Highway Trust Fund will forgo
about $6.92 billion from fiscal years 2002 to 2012 due to the General
Fund transfer (in constant 2001 dollars).[Footnote 3] According to
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and ethanol industry officials, the
partial tax exemption for gasohol helps to create a demand for ethanol
and make gasohol price competitive with gasoline.
* There are several ways the RABA adjustment could be changed to help
reduce fluctuations in highway funding. For example, the RABA
adjustment could be distributed over 2 years. In addition, industry
groups have proposed a number of ways to increase Highway Trust Fund
revenues. Ultimately, however, the Congress and the administration must
weigh the advantages and disadvantages of these and other ways to
stabilize highway funding and/or increase Highway Trust Fund revenues.
Background: The Highway Trust Fund and TEA-21:
The Highway Revenue Act of 1956 established the Highway Trust Fund as
an accounting mechanism to help finance federal highway programs. In
1983, the Highway Trust Fund was divided into two accounts: a Highway
Account and a Mass Transit Account. Receipts to the Highway Account are
used to fund highway programs, through which billions of dollars are
distributed to the states annually for the construction and repair of
highways and related activities. Treasury uses a revenue allocation and
reporting process to distribute highway user taxes to the Highway Trust
Fund.
Financing for the Highway Trust Fund is derived from a variety of
federal highway user taxes including excise taxes on motor fuels
(gasoline, gasohol, diesel, and special fuels) and tires, sales of new
trucks and trailers, and the use of heavy vehicles. As table 1 shows,
the excise tax rates and distribution of the tax revenues vary. The
different tax rates reflect federal policy decisions. For example, in
the 1970s and 1980s, the federal government adopted numerous policies
to encourage the use of alternatives to imported fossil fuels and help
support farm incomes. Among these policies were tax incentives that
targeted the use of alcohol fuels derived from biomass materials, such
as ethanol.[Footnote 4] Ethanol blended fuels (gasohol) are partially
exempt from the standard excise tax on gasoline (18.4 cents). The
proportion of ethanol contained in each gallon of fuel determines the
size of the partial exemption. The most common ethanol blend contains
90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol and is currently taxed at
13.1 cents per gallon”an exemption of 5.3 cents.[Footnote 5] The
federal government also uses the distribution of excise tax receipts
to different accounts to achieve policy goals. For example, a small
part of the excise tax on most motor fuels is distributed to the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to clean-up contamination
caused by underground storage tanks. Additionally, 2.5 cents of the
tax received on each gallon of gasohol is transferred to the General
Fund, rather than the Highway Trust Fund, for deficit reduction
purposes.
Table 1: Excise Tax Rates and Distributions of Highway User Taxes, as
of July 2001 (Cents per gallon):
Type of tax: Motor fuels taxes:
Gasoline:
Tax rate: 18.40;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 15.44;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 2.86;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: 0.10;
General Fund: [Empty].
Diesel:
Tax rate: 24.40;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 21.44;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 2.86;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: 0.10;
General Fund: [Empty].
Type of tax: Alternative fuels taxes:
Gasohol (10% ethanol):
Tax rate: 13.10;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 7.64;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 2.86;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: 0.10;
General Fund: 2.5.
Alternative fuels taxes: Liquefied petroleum gas;
Tax rate: 13.60;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 11.47;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 2.13;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: [Empty];
General Fund: [Empty].
Alternative fuels taxes: Liquefied natural gas;
Tax rate: 11.90;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 10.04;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 1.86;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: [Empty];
General Fund: [Empty].
Alternative fuels taxes: M85 (from natural gas);
Tax rate: 9.25;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 7.72;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 1.43;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: 0.10;
General Fund: [Empty].
Alternative fuels taxes: Compressed natural gas (cents per thousand
cu. ft.);
Tax rate: 48.54;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Highway Account: 38.83;
Distribution of tax: Highway Trust Fund: Transit Account: 9.70;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: [Empty];
General Fund: [Empty].
Type of tax: Truck-related taxes:
Tires:
Tax rate: 0-40 lbs, no tax
Over 40 lbs – 70 lbs, 15 cents per pound in excess of 40;
Over 70 lbs – 90 lbs, $4.50 plus 30 cents per pound in excess of 70;
Over 90 lbs, $10.50 plus 50 cents per pound in excess of 90.
Truck and Trailer Sales Tax:
Tax rate: 12 percent of retailer‘s sales price for tractors and trucks
over 33,000 lbs gross vehicle;
weight (GVW) and trailers over 26,000 lbs GVW.
Heavy Vehicle Use Tax;
Tax rate: Annual tax:
Trucks 55,000 lbs and over GVW, $100 plus $22 for each 1,000 lbs (or
fraction thereof) in excess of 55,000 lbs (maximum tax of $550).
Note: Tax rates for gasohol mixtures vary according to the amount of
ethanol contained in the mixture.
Source: FHWA and Treasury.
[End of table]
TEA-21 continued the use of the Highway Trust Fund as the mechanism
for accounting for federal highway user taxes. TEA-21 also established
guaranteed spending levels for certain highway and transit programs.
Prior to TEA-21, these programs competed for budgetary resources
through the annual appropriations process with other domestic
discretionary programs. New budget categories were established for
highway and transit spending, effectively establishing a budgetary ’
firewall“ between those programs and other domestic discretionary
spending programs. Of the $217.9 billion authorized for surface
transportation programs over the 6-year life of TEA-21, about $198
billion is protected by the budgetary firewall”about $162 billion for
highway programs and $36 billion for transit programs.
Under TEA-21, the amount of highway program funds distributed to the
states is tied to the amount of actual tax receipts credited to the
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. TEA-21 guaranteed specific
levels of funding for highway programs from fiscal year 1999 through
fiscal year 2003, on the basis of projected receipts of the Highway
Account. TEA-21 also provided that beginning in fiscal year 2000, this
guaranteed funding level for each fiscal year would be adjusted upward
or downward through the RABA calculation as the levels of Highway
Account receipts increased or decreased. To determine the RABA
adjustment, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the
Secretary in the Department of Transportation rely on information on
Highway Account receipts and revised Highway Account projections
supplied by Treasury. Specifically, the Bureau of Public Debt provides
the actual Highway Account receipts for the prior fiscal year, and the
Office of Tax Analysis (OTA) provides a projection of Highway Account
receipts for the next fiscal year.
The Calculation of the Fiscal Year 2003 RABA Adjustment Appears
Reasonable:
On the basis of the information we reviewed, the fiscal year 2003 RABA
calculation”a negative $4.369 billion”appears reasonable. The RABA
adjustment for fiscal year 2003 was calculated by (1) comparing the
actual Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2001 to the
projections of receipts for fiscal year 2001 included in TEA-21, and
an adjustment for the RABA calculation made for that year (the look
back portion of the calculation) and (2) comparing projections of
Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2003 with the projection of
these receipts contained in TEA-21 (the look ahead portion of the
calculation). The sum of these differences is the RABA adjustment.
Table 2 shows the RABA calculations for fiscal years 2000 through
2003. As shown, the RABA adjustments for fiscal year 2000 through
fiscal year 2002 were positive”increasing highway funding levels by a
total of over $9 billion. However, the RABA adjustment for fiscal year
2003 is negative $4.369 billion.
Table 2: RABA Calculation for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 (In
millions of dollars):
Fiscal year: FY 2000;
"Look back":
1998 actual Highway Account receipts: $23,135;
less: 1998 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $22,164;
less: look-ahead result for 1998: $0;
subtotal: $971.
"Look ahead":
2000 estimated Highway Account receipts: $28,551;
less: 2000 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts $28,066;
subtotal: $485;
RABA: $1,456.
Fiscal year: FY 2001;
"Look back":
1999 actual Highway Account receipts: $33,815;
less: 1999 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $32,619;
less: look-ahead result for 1999: $0;
subtotal: $1,196;
"Look ahead":
2001 estimated Highway Account receipts: $30,368;
less: 2001 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $28,506;
subtotal: $1,862;
RABA: $3,058.
Fiscal year: FY 2002;
"Look back":
2000 actual Highway Account receipts: $30,334;
less: 2000 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $28,066;
less: look-ahead result for 2000: $485;
subtotal: $1,783;
"Look ahead":
2002 estimated Highway Account receipts: $31,732;
less: 2002 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $28,972;
subtotal: $2,760;
RABA: $4,543
Fiscal year: FY 2003;
"Look back":
2001 actual Highway Account receipts: $26,900;
less: 2001 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $28,506;
less: look-ahead result for 2001: $1,862;
subtotal: ($3,468);
"Look ahead":
2003 estimated Highway Account receipts: $28,570;
less: 2003 TEA-21 estimated Highway Account receipts: $29,471;
subtotal: ($901);
RABA: ($,369).
Note: Actual receipts reflect certified net tax receipts (excluding
fines and penalties) after deduction of transfers and refunds for the
first three quarters of the fiscal year plus an estimate for the fourth
quarter. To account for the differences between actual and estimated
receipts for the previous year‘s fourth quarter, Treasury makes an
adjustment to the current fiscal year‘s receipts. Treasury prepares
forecasts of tax receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust
Fund for the president‘s budget and other analyses. The Congressional
Budget Office prepared the estimates of Highway Account receipts
contained in TEA-21.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Eighty percent of the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment is attributable
to the look back portion of the calculation. The actual fiscal year 2001
Highway Account receipts were about $1.6 billion lower than projections
in TEA-21. According to Treasury, actual fiscal year 2001 receipts were
lower than expected due to the slowdown in the economy, which
especially affected heavy truck sales, and increased gasohol use. We
reviewed the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund for the
first 9 months of fiscal year 2001, and concluded that these amounts
were reasonable and adequately supported on the basis of available
information. With respect to the look ahead portion of the
calculation, we reviewed Treasury‘s process for projecting Highway
Account revenues. Although we did not independently evaluate the
methodology and the economic models Treasury used to develop its
revenue projections, our review of a qualitative description of the
process, key inputs, and changes to the models gave us no reason to
question the resulting projections.
Treasury‘s Excise Tax Distributions to the Highway Trust Fund for the
First 9 Months of Fiscal Year 2001 Are Reasonable:
The Secretary of the Treasury transfers applicable excise tax receipts,
including receipts from gasoline and other highway taxes, from the
General Fund to the excise tax related trust funds, including the
Highway Trust Fund, on a monthly basis. These transfers are based on
estimates because actual data on which to base the allocations are not
available when the deposits are initially made. OTA prepares these
estimates on the basis of historical IRS certification data and actual
excise tax revenue collections. Subsequently, IRS certifies the actual
excise tax revenue collections that should have been distributed to
the trust funds on the basis of tax returns and payment data.[Footnote
6] Using the IRS certifications, Treasury makes quarterly adjustments
to the initial trust fund distributions. For example, in March 2001,
Treasury made an adjustment to decrease the fiscal year 2001 excise
tax revenue distributions to the Highway Trust Fund to correct for
actual collections in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000. The
certified fourth quarter receipts were $1.2 billion less than the
amount initially distributed on the basis of OTA‘s estimates for that
quarter. According to an OTA official, OTA had calculated the original
estimated transfer amounts for the quarter using an economic model
that assumed a higher rate of economic growth through calendar year
2000 than was actually the case.[Footnote 7] As a result, the downward
adjustment was made, reducing the fiscal year 2001 distributions to
the Highway Trust Fund by $1.2 billion, which contributed to the
fiscal year 2003 negative RABA adjustment.[Footnote 8]
Our past reports have identified errors and problems with Treasury‘s
excise tax allocation process.[Footnote 9] However, Treasury has made
and continues to make improvements to this process. On February 11,
2002, we issued a report on the results of procedures we performed
related to the distributions of excise tax revenue to the Highway
Trust Fund in fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 10] On the basis of this
work, we believe the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund for
the first 9 months of fiscal year 2001, which were subject to IRS‘
quarterly excise tax certification process and which were adjusted on
the basis of this process, were reasonable and were adequately
supported according to available information. Additionally, we believe
the March 2001 adjustment made by Treasury to reduce fiscal year 2001
excise tax distributions to the Highway Trust Fund by $1.2 billion
was reasonable and adequately supported.
IRS expects to deliver the results of its certifications for
distributions of excise tax revenue collected during the period July
1, 2001, through September 30, 2001 to Treasury‘s Financial Management
Service by March 20, 2002. Consequently, the distributions of fourth
quarter fiscal year 2001 excise tax revenue were based solely on
estimates prepared by OTA. We did not draw any conclusions about the
reasonableness of the distributions made to the Highway Trust Fund for
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001.
Fiscal Year 2001 Receipts Lower Than Expected:
One component of the look back portion of the RABA calculation is the
comparison of actual fiscal year 2001 Highway Account receipts with
projections of those receipts in TEA-21. The actual receipts were about
$1.6 billion lower than the amounts contained in TEA-21. According to
Treasury, the lower than expected highway excise tax receipts in fiscal
year 2001 were due to several factors. Most importantly, the weakened
economy contributed to a decline in highway excise taxes paid. All but
one of the Highway Trust Fund receipt sources were lower in fiscal
year 2001 than 2000. For example, tax revenue from the retail tax on
trucks dropped 55 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001.
It is important to note that the tax is applied to the sale of new
trucks only. As the economy weakened, large numbers of used trucks
were placed on the market, which depressed prices and sales in the new
heavy truck market.
In addition to the economic downturn, the rise in the use of gasohol
contributed to decreased Highway Account receipts. The amount of
gasohol receipts allocated to the Highway Account rose by 17.5 percent
between fiscal years 2000 and 2001, which Treasury believes is
evidence of an ongoing substitution of gasohol fuels for gasoline.
Because gasohol is taxed at a lower rate than gasoline and a portion
of the tax on gasohol is transferred to the General Fund, increases in
gasohol use and corresponding reductions in gasoline use decrease
Highway Account revenues.
Treasury Uses Seven Economic Models to Forecast Receipts:
While not the main factor, the look ahead portion of the RABA
calculation also contributed to the overall negative RABA adjustment.
As discussed earlier, the look ahead is the difference between TEA-21‘
s projections for the next fiscal year to current projections from the
president‘s budget, which are prepared by Treasury. Based on the
general qualitative description Treasury provided us about its
methodology and economic models used to develop Highway Trust Fund
revenue projections, we have no reason to question the projections for
fiscal year 2003. Treasury generally performs two forecasting
exercises each year, including one for the president‘s budget.
Treasury uses seven econometric models to forecast each highway excise
tax revenue source, such as the tax on gasoline. These models seek to
approximate the relationship between historical tax liability and
current macroeconomic variables, such as the gross domestic product.
This estimated relationship is the baseline, and Treasury uses it to
project future excise tax liability, given current law and the
administration‘s economic assumptions. After calculating future tax
liability, Treasury forecasters convert the tax liability forecast to
a tax receipts forecast using information on deposit rules, payment
patterns, and actual collections.
The administration‘s economic assumptions drive the projections made
with each model. According to Treasury, receipts forecasting is a policy
exercise conducted for the president to show the state of the Highway
Trust Fund if the administration‘s economic assumptions were to come to
fruition. Consequently, Treasury‘s forecasts incorporate economic
assumptions formulated for the budget by the ’Troika,“ which consists of
the Council of Economic Advisors, the Office of Management and Budget,
and Treasury. Because the goal is to provide a forecast consistent with
these economic assumptions, the models use these assumptions directly
as explanatory variables, or link other explanatory variables to the
assumptions provided. Several of the administration‘s economic
assumptions are publicly available, such as the gross domestic product
and consumer price index. However, most Troika assumptions are not
publicly available. Other variables specific to the Highway Trust Fund
are included in the economic models. Treasury generally obtains this
information from other federal agencies. For example, Treasury
incorporates USDA‘s forecast of ethanol use in its gasohol model.
However, according to Treasury, the forecasters must ensure that the
addition of these other variables does not create inconsistencies
between the projections and the administration‘s assumptions.
It should also be noted that Treasury does not try to predict future
regulatory or legislative changes at the federal or state levels that
could affect Highway Trust Fund revenue but bases its projections on
current law. Any legislative or regulatory changes that affect Highway
Trust Fund revenue will affect the accuracy of the forecasts. Treasury
continuously updates its models to incorporate legislative, economic,
and other relevant changes”which are then reflected in the next
forecasting exercise.
Treasury‘s Highway Trust Fund Forecasting Framework Has Remained
Consistent:
According to Treasury officials, Treasury‘s modeling framework for
projecting highway excise tax receipts has not changed in recent years.
Treasury‘s framework consists of a series of econometric models that
approximate the relationship between historical tax liability and
current macroeconomic variables, which are then used to project future
tax liability given current law and certain economic assumptions.
Although the overall framework has remained consistent, Treasury
officials noted that the specific economic models used to project
receipts are continuously evolving to reflect current circumstances.
For example, the models are constantly updated to incorporate the most
current information on tax collections and reported tax liabilities,
as well as enacted legislation. In addition to these routine changes,
the models have occasionally undergone other modifications. Treasury
identified 15 major changes to the models since 1998. These changes
ranged from moving the highway-type tire tax from an annual model to a
quarterly model and revising the ethanol forecast in the gasohol model
to reflect the phasing out of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) in
certain states. According to Treasury, the identified changes were
designed to improve the models‘ forecasting ability.
Although Treasury does not use an independent reviewer to validate the
models, Treasury officials noted several ways they validate them. First,
the Director of Treasury‘s Office of Tax Analysis reviews the results
of the model for accuracy and soundness at least twice a year. Second,
Treasury officials compare the projected receipts with actual receipts
to assess the validity of the models. In comparing the projected and
actual receipts, Treasury forecasters try to determine the cause of
any substantial differences and make changes to the model, as
appropriate. Third, trust fund agencies, such as FHWA, receive the
forecasts semiannually and may offer comments to Treasury on the
projections.[Footnote 11]
Treasury‘s Current Projections Are Similar to CBO‘s Forecast:
In order to help determine the reasonableness of Treasury‘s
projection, we compared it with CBO‘s forecasts. This comparison does
not raise any questions about the reasonableness of Treasury‘s
projections. For example, despite different methodologies and
assumptions, Treasury and CBO projections of Highway Account receipts
for the budget window are very similar. (See figure) Both agencies
forecast steady growth in receipts from fiscal years 2002 through
2012. For example, both Treasury and CBO project the average annual
growth of highway-related excise taxes will be about 3 percent.
Figure 1: Comparison of Treasury and CBO Projections of Highway Account
Receipts, 2002 to 2012:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
This graph depicts the Treasury and CBO Projections of Highway Account
Receipts, from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2012.
Both projections show an increase in receipts from approximately $28
billion in 2002 to approximately $38 billion in 2012.
Source: Treasury and CBO.
[End of figure]
$600 Million Error in RABA Adjustment Occurred Outside of Treasury‘s
Models:
In January 2002, the administration announced that the fiscal year 2003
RABA adjustment would be a negative $4.965 billion. The administration
subsequently announced that an error had been made in calculating the
RABA adjustment and that the correct amount was a negative $4.369
billion”a $600 million difference.
The error, which was made in Treasury‘s allocation of projected highway
tax revenues to various accounts rather than in its economic models,
affected the look ahead part of the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation.
Specifically, it occurred in Treasury‘s allocation of projected revenues
from gasohol sales to the General Fund, the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund, and the Highway and Transit Accounts within the
Highway Trust Fund. In short, the error resulted in the incorrect
distribution of projected gasohol receipts among the funds.
Because gasohol has six different blends”all with different tax rates
and distributions”the gasohol allocations are complicated and require
many ’links“ among several spreadsheets. With respect to gasohol, the
Highway Account receipts are calculated after allocations for the
other accounts”the Mass Transit Account, the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund, and the General Fund”have been calculated.
This is because the Highway Account is a ’catch-all“ for taxes not
already attributed to other accounts. A misalignment occurred between
the different spreadsheets used to distribute gasohol tax revenues to
the different accounts, which caused too much of the gasohol revenues
to be transferred to the General Fund. Therefore, the error
incorrectly lowered projected Highway Account revenue beginning with
fiscal year 2002.
According to a Treasury official, a number of factors contributed to the
error, including tightened time constraints during this budget cycle for
Treasury forecasters to calculate and review their projections for the
fiscal year 2003 budget. Each forecaster is responsible for reviewing
his/her own calculations. In hindsight, however, this official said
that the internal quality checks his office made were insufficient,
especially on the gasohol calculations, which are very complex. He
noted that Treasury plans to take several steps to avoid such an error
in the future, including requiring another Treasury forecaster to spot
check the projections.
Gasohol Usage Has Significant Impact on Trust Fund:
The use of gasohol instead of gasoline affects the amount of Highway
Account revenue for two reasons. First, gasohol is partially exempt from
the standard gasoline excise tax. Second, 2.5 cents of the tax
received on each gallon of gasohol sold is transferred to the General
Fund. (See figure 2.) Based on our ongoing work, our preliminary
estimates show that the partial tax exemption resulted in $3.86
billion in revenue forgone by the Highway Account during fiscal years
1998 through 2001.[Footnote 12] We also estimate that the General Fund
transfer caused a reduction of $2.15 billion in Highway Account
revenue during the same period.
Figure 2: Distribution of Gasoline and Gasohol Taxes to Different
Accounts:
[Refer to PDF for image: two pie-charts]
Gasoline: 18.4 cents:
Highway account: 15.44 cents;
Mass Transit account: 2.86 cents;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: 0.1 cents.
Gasohol: 13.1 cents:
Highway account: 7.64 cents;
Mass Transit account: 2.86 cents;
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund: 2.5 cents.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Treasury projects that gasohol use will continue to rise steadily
through fiscal year 2012. According to Treasury, such an increase will
occur at the expense of gasoline as some states ban the use of MTBE as
an oxygenate additive. Using Treasury‘s highway excise tax revenue
projections, we estimate that the partial tax exemption will lower
Highway Account revenue by a total of $13.72 billion from fiscal years
2002 through 2012. (See figure 3.) We also estimate that the Highway
Account will not receive $2.36 billion due to the General Fund
transfer from fiscal years 2002 through 2005, when the transfer ends.
[Footnote 13] In addition, if the amount of the transfer is not
dedicated to the Highway Account following fiscal year 2005, we
project that the Highway Account will forgo $4.56 billion from fiscal
years 2006 through 2012. State or federal legislation or regulations
that result in gasohol use above what is currently projected, such as a
nationwide ban on MTBE, would increase the negative impact on the
Highway Account absent other changes.
Figure 3: Estimated Revenue Forgone by the Highway Account Due to
Gasohol Tax Provisions, 1998 to 2012:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
The graph depicts estimated revenue forgone by the Highway Account due
to gasohol tax provisions from 1998 to 2012. The following are
depicted:
General Fund transfer;
Partial tax exemption.
Note: Estimates for fiscal years 1998 to 2000 are based on actual
excise taxes collected. We estimated fiscal year 2001 receipts using
actual receipts collected for the first three quarters and a
projection of receipts collected for the fourth quarter. Estimates for
fiscal years 2002 to 2012 are based on Treasury‘s projections.
Estimates are in constant 2001 dollars.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
According to USDA and ethanol industry officials, the partial tax
exemption for gasohol is intended to create a demand for ethanol that
will raise the price of ethanol at least to the point where producers
can cover costs. These officials stated that if the partial tax
exemption on ethanol was removed, the price of ethanol would no longer
be competitive with gasoline and the demand would disappear. In this
case, ethanol fuel production would, for the most part, not continue.
Furthermore, ethanol industry officials we talked to warned that
because a substantial amount of the corn grown in the United States is
used for ethanol, the collapse of the ethanol industry would affect
the corn and agriculture markets which could in turn affect the
federal government‘s agricultural support payments.
Ways to Reduce Highway Funding Fluctuations and Industry Proposals to
Increase Revenues:
As the Congress considers the reauthorization of surface transportation
programs, there are several ways it could restructure the RABA
adjustment to reduce fluctuations in highway funding. Furthermore,
industry officials have identified a number of possible ways to increase
Highway Trust Fund revenues. Ultimately, the Congress and the
administration must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of changing
the RABA adjustment and/or Highway Trust Fund revenue streams. The
discussion that follows is not intended to show support for any possible
alternatives but instead to describe some of the ways highway funding
could be increased.
The RABA formula as defined by TEA-21 contains look back and look
ahead components that tend to accentuate the impact of any shifts in
Highway Account receipts. For example, the recent downturn in the
economy is reflected in several elements of the fiscal year 2003 RABA
calculation. First, the actual receipts for fiscal year 2001 were
lower than expected. Second, the downturn caused a need to correct for
optimistic projections of fiscal year 2001 receipts made in December
1999. Third, the fiscal year 2003 projections are lower than those
contained in TEA-21 because the updated projections reflect the
current economic conditions.
There are several changes that could be made to reduce the potential for
dramatic swings in funding for highway programs but maintain a tie to
actual receipts credited to the Highway Account. For example, changes to
the RABA adjustment that could smooth out the impact of significant
funding changes would include (1) eliminating the look ahead part of the
RABA calculation, (2) averaging the look back part of the calculation
over 2 years, and (3) distributing the RABA adjustments over 2 years.
In figure 4, we show the actual RABA adjustments under the current
structure and the adjustments that would have been made using these
three options from fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
Figure 4: Comparison of Different RABA Options (Dollars in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
The graph depicts the following for the period of 2000 through 2003:
Current;
Eliminating the look ahead;
Distributing adjustment over 2 years;
Using 2-year average for look back.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
As shown, the three options appear to produce less dramatic shifts in
funding than the current RABA mechanism over the past four years.
However, we did not analyze how these options would perform against
different trust fund scenarios or economic cycles in the future.
Industry groups have proposed various ways to increase Highway Trust
Fund revenue such as crediting the Highway Trust Fund for the interest
earned on its balances, increasing the use of tolls, and/or
establishing an indexing system to help ensure that gas tax revenues
are linked to inflation. Although each of these actions would increase
Highway Trust Fund revenues, we have not evaluated their fiscal or
public policy implications.
Another way to enhance Highway Trust Fund revenues would be to
increase highway excise taxes. Although no tax increase is attractive,
there are some equity arguments that support an increase in certain
highway user taxes. For example, for some time FHWA has reported that
heavy trucks (trucks weighing over 55,000 pounds) cause a
disproportionate amount of damage to the nation‘s highways and have not
paid a corresponding share for the cost of the pavement damage they
cause. Currently, heavy vehicles are taxed at the rate of $100 per
year plus $22 for every 1,000 pounds (or fraction thereof) they weigh
over 55,000 pounds. However the tax is capped at $550. In 2000, we
reported that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that raising
the ceiling on this fee to $1900 could generate about $100 million per
year.[Footnote 14]
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have. For questions regarding this testimony please contact JayEtta Z.
Hecker on (202) 512-2834 or at heckerj@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Nikki Clowers, Helen
Desaulniers, Mehrzad Nadji, Stephen Rossman, Ron Stouffer, and James
Wozny.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To determine the reasonableness of the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA) calculation we relied in part on previous work done by GAO
under an agreement with the Department of Transportation‘s Inspector
General which resulted in a February 2002 report: Applying Agreed-Upon
Procedures: Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes (GAO-02-379R). Under that
agreement we (1) performed detailed tests of transactions that represent
the underlying basis of the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust
Fund, (2) reviewed the Internal Revenue Service‘s quarterly
certifications of these amounts, and (3) reviewed the Office of Tax
Analysis‘ process for estimating amounts distributed to the Highway
Trust Fund in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001. We also
interviewed knowledgeable Department of Treasury, Office of Management
and Budget, and Department of Transportation officials who provided
documentation and described the processes used to develop the
calculation. We obtained from the Treasury‘s Office of Tax Analysis
(OTA) a general description of its economic models, including key
inputs and changes made to the models since 1998, which are used to
estimate future Highway Trust Fund revenues. Additionally, we reviewed
related OTA internal analyses and reports. However, we did not
evaluate or certify Treasury‘s economic models that forecast future
Highway Trust Fund revenues. We met with Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) officials who described their process for projecting Highway
Trust Fund revenues. CBO officials also provided their Highway Trust
Fund revenue forecast, which we compared to Treasury‘s projections.
To determine how the $600 million error in the initial RABA adjustment
was made, we interviewed Treasury and DOT officials. We also reviewed
Treasury‘s workpapers to determine the source and cause of the error.
To evaluate the impact of gasohol usage on the Highway Account we
interviewed Department of Energy, Transportation and Agriculture
officials and representatives from the Renewable Fuels Association, the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association and the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers. We reviewed Department of Energy and
Agriculture reports and analyses on ethanol production and consumption.
To calculate the revenue forgone to the Highway Trust Fund as a result
of the gasohol tax provisions we used a methodology we developed in a
prior study of alcohol fuel tax incentives.[Footnote 15] In
particular, we used actual and projected excise tax receipts on
gasohol and gasoline used for gasohol; tax rates for gasohol, gasoline
used for gasohol, and gasoline; and information on the distribution of
the receipts from these fuels to the Highway Account, Mass Transit
Account, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and General
Fund to calculate the revenue forgone by the Highway Account due to
gasohol tax provisions. Our data sources included the Statistics of
Income Bulletin and Treasury‘s latest projections of gasohol tax
receipts and refunds and credits. In addition, Treasury provided
information on the tax rates and the distributions of the tax receipts
to different accounts by year. Our estimates of the future impact
of gasohol use are based on Treasury‘s projections of gasohol tax
receipts and as a result, our projections incorporate the same
assumptions used by Treasury.
The estimates that we present are ’static“ estimates in that they do not
take into account the potential changes in motor fuel consumption in
response to the elimination of the exemptions. The projections do not
represent the amount of revenue that would be saved if the exemptions
were eliminated because they do not account for the behavioral responses
that might alter the total consumption in the future. Rather, the
estimates that we have made are of the reduction of excise tax
revenues due to the exemptions.
To identify possible ways to change the RABA adjustment to reduce the
wide shifts caused by the current formula, we relied on discussions we
had with Treasury and DOT officials. We attempted to show how the
options we identified would result in less fluctuation if they had been
applied throughout the TEA-21 time period. We did not attempt to project
how these alternatives would affect future funding levels under
different highway receipt scenarios. To identify ways to enhance
Highway Trust Fund revenues we used our past work on heavy truck use.
In addition, we interviewed government and industry officials from
such organizations as the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association. We did not attempt to evaluate the fiscal or public
policy implications of any of these proposals.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Funding: Problems with
Highway Trust Fund Information Can Affect State Highway Funds,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-148]
(Washington, D.C.: June 2000); and U.S. General Accounting Office,
Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures: Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-379R] (Washington,
D.C.: February 2002). Our work was carried out in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[2] For the purposes of this testimony, we use the term gasohol to
refer to all types of ethanol blended fuels. While biomass methanol
fuels are also eligible for partial tax exemptions, Treasury does not
separately track the small amounts associated with them.
[3] The General Fund transfer expires at the end of fiscal year 2005.
To reflect the expiration, Treasury reduces the total federal excise
tax on gasohol blends by 2.5 cents starting in fiscal year 2006. Under
Treasury‘s approach, the Highway Account is neither benefited nor
harmed by the expiration. For the purposes of this testimony, we
estimated the impact of the 2.5 cent General Fund transfer assuming
the transfer continued through fiscal year 2012.
[4] Biomass-derived alcohol fuels are chemical compounds made from
nonfossil material of biological origin and constitute a renewable
energy source.
[5] Ethanol blended fuels containing 7.7 percent ethanol and 5.7
percent ethanol qualify for a 4.058 cents and 2.978 cents per gallon
exemption, respectively. TEA-21 extended the exemption for gasohol
fuels through fiscal year 2007 and provided for a phased-in reduction
in the exemption for gasohol.
[6] Typically, IRS certifies quarterly excise tax collections 6 months
after the end of the quarter. This is to allow sufficient time for
receipt and processing of the tax returns, including returns filed
late. Even though IRS certifies collections 6 months after the end of
a quarter, certifications for any given quarter routinely contain some
amounts related to prior quarters.
[7] Prior to December 2000, the distribution process was linked to
OTA‘s receipt estimates for inclusion in the president‘s budget.
[8] An adjustment of this type is made every year to correct for the
difference between the actual amounts received in the fourth quarter
of the previous year and the estimated amounts for that quarter.
[9] See, for example, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-148].
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-379R].
[11] FHWA is developing a model to project Highway Trust Fund receipts.
[12] All estimates of revenue forgone by the Highway Account are
presented in constant 2001 dollars.
[13] The General Fund transfer expires at the end of fiscal year 2005.
To reflect the expiration, Treasury reduces the total federal excise
tax on gasohol blends by 2.5 cents starting in fiscal year 2006. Under
Treasury‘s approach, the Highway Account is neither benefited nor
harmed by the expiration. For the purposes of this testimony, we
estimated the impact of the 2.5 cent General Fund transfer assuming
the transfer continued through fiscal year 2012.
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Budget Issues: Budgetary
Implications of Select GAO Work For Fiscal Year 2001, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-OCG-00-8] (Washington, D.C.: March 31,
2000).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Tax Policy: Effects of the
Alcohol Fuels Tax Incentives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-41] (Washington, D.C.: March 6,
1997).
[End of section]
