Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Licensing and Registration Fees Program Gao ID: GAO-09-1023R September 28, 2009Over the last several weeks, we reviewed the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) to provide pertinent and timely information that the Congress could use during budget deliberations. Our objectives were to (1) examine any programs with significant increases from the prior year and any significant unexpended balances and (2) review any new programs in the budget request. To do our work, we compared prior and current year budget requests, reviewed key budget-related documents, and interviewed TTB officials. Given the objectives and scope of this work, we conducted this work in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions. Based on our review, we are not recommending any reductions, realignments, or restrictions to TTB's fiscal year 2010 budget. However, given our nation's current fiscal challenges and the government's need to make the most effective use of its limited resources, we provide the following comments on TTB's legislative proposal for a licensing and registration fees program for alcohol businesses contained in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request, which may be useful to TTB and the Congress during fiscal year 2011 budget preparations and deliberations. We provided TTB an opportunity to provide its views on our work and have incorporated these views, where appropriate.
The TTB legislative proposal would establish a permanent licensing and registration fee program to offset amounts appropriated from the general fund. The Department of the Treasury's congressional budget justification explains the legislative proposal as requiring entities in the alcohol business, including retail dealers in liquors and beer, wholesale dealers in liquors and beer, alcohol producers, and brewers, to pay an annual licensing and registration fee. TTB would be responsible for implementing and administering this fee program. Generally, the legislative proposal recommended fixed-dollar annual fees for alcohol retailers at $300, wholesalers at $500, and producers at $1,000. According to TTB officials, TTB included this proposal in its budget request after consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB maintained that TTB's funding would, then, be in line with other regulatory agencies' funding schemes. If the Congress enacted the language proposed by TTB in the President's budget request, the collection of these fees was expected to raise an estimated $80 million, or about three-fourths of TTB's budget request for fiscal year 2010, and reduce amounts derived from the general fund. In the next year, fiscal year 2011, collections from the alcohol industries were estimated to cover TTB's entire costs, including the portion relating to the tobacco, firearms, and ammunition industries.
GAO-09-1023R, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Licensing and Registration Fees Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-1023R
entitled 'Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: Fiscal Year 2010
Proposed Licensing and Registration Fees Program' which was released on
September 29, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
GAO-09-1023R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 28, 2009:
John J. Manfreda:
Administrator:
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
Department of the Treasury:
Subject: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: Fiscal Year 2010
Proposed Licensing and Registration Fees Program:
Dear Mr. Manfreda:
Over the last several weeks, we reviewed the President's fiscal year
2010 budget request for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) to provide pertinent and timely information that the Congress
could use during budget deliberations. Our objectives were to (1)
examine any programs with significant increases from the prior year and
any significant unexpended balances and (2) review any new programs in
the budget request. To do our work, we compared prior and current year
budget requests, reviewed key budget-related documents, and interviewed
TTB officials. Given the objectives and scope of this work, we
conducted this work in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality
Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework
requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient
and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss
any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data
obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for
any findings and conclusions.
Based on our review, we are not recommending any reductions,
realignments, or restrictions to TTB's fiscal year 2010 budget.
However, given our nation's current fiscal challenges and the
government's need to make the most effective use of its limited
resources, we provide the following comments on TTB's legislative
proposal for a licensing and registration fees program for alcohol
businesses contained in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget
request, which may be useful to TTB and the Congress during fiscal year
2011 budget preparations and deliberations. We provided TTB an
opportunity to provide its views on our work and have incorporated
these views, where appropriate.
Alternatives to an Annual Licensing and Registration Fee Program Exist:
The TTB legislative proposal would establish a permanent licensing and
registration fee program to offset amounts appropriated from the
general fund. The Department of the Treasury's congressional budget
justification explains the legislative proposal as requiring entities
in the alcohol business, including retail dealers in liquors and beer,
wholesale dealers in liquors and beer, alcohol producers, and brewers,
to pay an annual licensing and registration fee. TTB would be
responsible for implementing and administering this fee program.
Generally, the legislative proposal recommended fixed-dollar annual
fees for alcohol retailers at $300, wholesalers at $500, and producers
at $1,000.
According to TTB officials, TTB included this proposal in its budget
request after consultation with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). OMB maintained that TTB's funding would, then, be in line with
other regulatory agencies' funding schemes. If the Congress enacted the
language proposed by TTB in the President's budget request, the
collection of these fees was expected to raise an estimated $80
million, or about three-fourths of TTB's budget request for fiscal year
2010, and reduce amounts derived from the general fund. In the next
year, fiscal year 2011, collections from the alcohol industries were
estimated to cover TTB's entire costs, including the portion relating
to the tobacco, firearms, and ammunition industries.
OMB issued a July 15, 2009, statement of administration policy in which
the administration urged the Congress to authorize TTB to collect
licensing and registration fees from producers, wholesalers, and
retailers of beverage alcohol. Per the statement, funding TTB through
fees would properly assign the cost of keeping consumers safe to those
who profit from the sale of alcoholic beverages. However, our analysis
of this fee proposal left us with questions about the overall design.
Alternative designs for TTB's fee proposal exist. A user-fee program
can be designed to fund the portions of activities that provide
benefits to identifiable users. However, to achieve such a goal, user
fees must be well designed. TTB could use OMB and our report's guidance
to refine its proposal and develop user fees that (1) tie to TTB's
direct and indirect program costs of regulating alcohol, or (2) are set
as percentages of some appropriate base, rather than fixed-dollar
amounts, or that do both.[Footnote 1] (The GAO user-fee guide can be
obtained through the hyperlink in footnote 1.) Further, the guidance
documents suggest that alternative fee designs could include one or
more of the following:
* setting the user fees to fund the proportions of TTB's costs
attributable to each industry type (i.e., alcohol, tobacco, and
firearms);
* making the fee a percentage of a base that measures a business's
size, such as sales; and:
* varying the fees proportionately if the costs vary by type of
business.[Footnote 2]
When developing the fees, changes in consumer use may also need to be
considered. For example, if fees are set based on an anticipated level
of sales of alcohol and there is a decrease or an increase in sales,
the revenues available to fund TTB would change. Accordingly, fees
should be reviewed biennially to assure that existing charges are
adjusted to reflect unanticipated changes, and reserve funds should be
established.
These are not intended to be an exhaustive list nor are the
alternatives necessarily mutually exclusive--some could be combined,
but they illustrate some alternatives that are consistent with OMB
guidance and our work.[Footnote 3] Ultimately, decisions about how to
fund an agency's operations are a policy judgment for the Congress.
Consequently, this report does not make recommendations.
In commenting on a draft of this report, TTB commented that the
agency's current licensing and registration fee program proposal
already has many of the features consistent with those of a user fee
program. Among other things, TTB also expressed concern that too many
of the agency's activities do not lend themselves to a user fee
program. We agree that many of TTB's activities are not straightforward
for a simple user fee and that developing a well designed user fee
program can be difficult. We do not take a position on the decision to
establish a user fee program or on what portion of TTB's operations
should be funded by the same. However, should some type of a fee be
imposed, our design guide can assist with many of the challenges TTB
identified, such as questions about fee design and collection. The full
text of TTB's comments is reprinted in enclosure I.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB, and
other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at
no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning the information
discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9110 or
whitej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed
in enclosure II.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
James R. White:
Director, Tax Issues:
Strategic Issues Team:
Enclosures - 2:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
Comments from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
Department Of The Treasury:
Administrator:
Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau:
Washington, D.C. 20220
"A proud past...A focused future"
[hyperlink, http://www.TTB.gov]
James R. White:
Director, Tax Issues:
Strategic Issues Team:
Government Accountability Office:
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on GAO's report,
dated September X, 2009, regarding "Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau: Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Licensing and Registration Fees
Program (GAO-09-1023R)." While in this report GAO is not recommending
any reductions, realignments, or restrictions to TTB's FY 2010 budget,
the report offers for consideration alternative solutions to improve
the licensing and registration fee proposal put forward in the budget
request. Ultimately, as stated in the report, the matter is for
congressional consideration and any final decision about how to fund an
agency's operation rests with Congress.
The basic premise of the TTB licensing and registration fee program is
to shift the burden of paying for TTB operations that support the
alcohol, tobacco, and firearms industries from the American taxpayer to
the producers, wholesalers, and retailers of those products, who
benefit from TTB oversight and regulation. Many of the features of this
fee proposal are consistent with those referenced in the GAO report,
including varying the licensing and registration fees by the type and
size of business. Further, our fee proposal responds to the Nation's
fiscal crisis by fully funding the bureau through the collection of
prescribed fees for conducting business within the regulated
industries.
The theory behind user fees, as outlined in the GAO and OMB guidance,
is that a nexus exists between the fee amount and the cost of the
service, and that user fees can be used to recover the costs of a
specific service to the benefited parties. We find merit in the
principle of user fees, but too many of TTB's activities do not lend
themselves to this sort of fee program, such as tax collection, audits,
and regulatory enforcement. Other services, such as product safety
inspections, trade talks, and compliance investigations, provide
general benefit to the industry in the form of a safe and fair
marketplace and increased access to trade opportunities, which again
are not conducive to a direct fee-for-service structure. TTB,
therefore, cannot recover the full cost of operations under a user fee
program.
Though no fee proposal is without its drawbacks, TTB contends that the
licensing and fee proposal is sound in its straight-forward approach to
recouping the bureau's expenses from all sectors of these industries
who benefit from our regulation and enforcement of Federal standards
for producing, packaging, storing, importing, and distributing alcohol
and tobacco products. The licensing and registration fee program offers
the industry stability and predictability in the amount of fee owed,
and the bureau a reliable funding stream. Industry could plan and
budget for this nominal annual fee and avoid the uncertainty associated
with major fluctuations in operating costs from user fees.
From a policy perspective, the main point of divergence between the
user fee and licensing and registration fee programs concerns who bears
the burden of the fee. Under a user fee program, an unbalanced
proportion of the fees would be charged to producers, who receive
permits, label approvals, and investigative oversight from TTB. As
producers currently pay $21 billion in excise taxes, many in the
industry construe a user fee for these services as tantamount to double
taxation. On the other hand, the licensing and registration fee is an
assessment that covers the entire three-tier distribution system:
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. These fees would be borne
primarily by retailers, who do not owe federal excise tax and who can
pass the costs on to the consumers of these products. Our proposal
focuses on retailers and wholesalers, who undeniably profit from the
sale and marketing of TTB-regulated products.
As part of its user fee scheme, GAO suggests in the report to assess a
proportional fee for services provided to firearms and ammunition
industry members. TTB levies taxes and conducts audits of these
taxpayers. While TTB challenges the wisdom and practicality of a user
fee program like the one suggested by GAO, we will continue to review
options for passing along to industry the cost of our services to
regulated firearms and ammunition businesses.
Congress has not embraced past proposals to impose fees on these
regulated industries. Those in opposition have claimed that imposing a
fee on applicants seeking a permit to operate in the alcohol or tobacco
industry would be a barrier to entry for small businesses. Other
objections have been that industry innovation would be threatened, as
those operating as manufacturers would need to weigh the costs to
introduce new products to the market (i.e., multiple label application
fees, laboratory analysis fee, formula review fee, etc.). The most
common argument is that a fee program amounts to double taxation.
TTB has examined the cost of delivering its services, and has its own
concerns with how a user fee program would impact mission performance.
We expend considerable effort and resources on garnering voluntary
compliance from industry members. Charging those in the industry for
services associated with mandated requirements, such as the filing of
an amendment to their permit due to operational changes, would
predictably result in lower levels of compliance and work in opposition
to our public protection goals.
Further, as a practical matter, developing and administering a user fee
program that accounts for more than a dozen industry types with
businesses of varying sizes, and that takes into consideration the
varying complexity and volume of applications and requests, would be a
considerable administrative challenge. As many of TTB's activities are
not direct services to industry members, a user fee system as
recommended by GAO would require a host of formulas to derive the fees,
and TTB would still not recover the full cost of its operations. As GAO
notes in its report, the costs of designing a user fee program may
outweigh its benefits. The collection of multiple fees would
necessitate extensive billings and would require significant additional
staff and costly system updates to implement. As proposed, a licensing
and registration fee program could be designed and administered at a
minimum cost, while fully recovering operating costs, and without
detracting from TTB's core mission.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact; James R. White, (202) 512-9110 or whitej@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments; In addition to the contact named above, Libby
Mixon, Assistant Director; Amy Bowser; Bertha Dong; Carol Henn;
Jacqueline M. Nowicki; Shellee Soliday; and Diana Zinkl made
significant contributions to this report.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Federal User Fees: A Design Guide, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP] (Washington, D.C.: May 29,
2008) [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08386sp.pdf] downloaded
on Sept. 3, 2009, and OMB Circular No. A-25 Revised, Memorandum for
Heads of Executive Departments and Establishments; Subject: User
Charges [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a025/a025.html] downloaded on
Sept. 3, 2009.
[2] TTB management would need to determine if the costs involved in
designing an alternative fee, as we note, would outweigh any benefits
gained.
[3] See also GAO, Federal User Fees: Additional Analyses and Timely
Reviews Could Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design
and USCIS Operations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-180] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23,
2009) for additional information on designing user fees.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
