This section addresses the key administrative and legal issues associated with implementing the various revenue options.
Customs Duties and Fees: Allocating a portion of existing customs duties would require no major administrative effort or expansion of legal authority. While it should be relatively straightforward from an administrative perspective to increase the revenues coming from these mechanisms, the challenge is whether such mechanisms would be consistent with international rules governing trade. Such mechanisms, since they apply only to imports, might be seen by international trading partners as an unfair or inappropriate tariff and a potential violation of World Trade Organization rules. Further, these fees do not reach the U.S. exporters who generate much of the local highway use around the ports.
Freight Waybill Tax: A freight waybill tax would be generally expensive to administer due to the high number of taxpayers and the associated filing, auditing, and enforcement requirements. Private fleets would not be assessed the fee unless waybill-like costs were estimated and imputed to the private company, which would create added complexity and cost. In addition, the waybill is typically paid by the receiver of goods; however, in some cases it is paid by the benefiting cargo owner outside of the United States; thus determining how and from whom to collect the tax could be complex.
Weight Only or Weight-Distance Tax: The administrative costs of these taxes appear to be quite high, and some states that previously used ton-mile taxes have repealed them.18 Oregon's weight-mile tax rates are based on the average weight carried by a vehicle of each class, so it is only necessary to keep track of mileage rather than mileage and weight. Interstate carriers keep track of mileage, such that this method appears to reduce administrative costs on the part of the interstate trucker but relies on the accuracy of self-reporting. For non-interstate truckers, this mechanism would be a new and relatively costly administrative burden. Also, based on findings from a recent study, evasion has been an issue for states with weight-distance taxes.19 Tonnage taxes, if paid on vehicle weight alone, are somewhat simpler to administer but still require substantial self-reporting and carry with them compliance challenges like those for the HVUT
Container Tax: In general, there has been little analysis of how a national-level container tax would be imposed and implemented, so it is difficult to assess how challenging implementation would be. Actual collection complexity would depend on how the fee is applied (types of containers, who pays), how and through what organization(s) it is collected, and how the proceeds are used.20 Duplicative container fees at individual ports coupled with a national fee would be administratively burdensome for shippers; pre-emption of states' ability to impose container charges could be a problematic prerequisite, especially since such a fee could be used to help states fund relief of port congestion. Legally, the fee would have to be structured to avoid being interpreted as a duty on international trade activities, which is an issue with the harbor maintenance tax. | There has been limited analysis of how a national-level container tax would be imposed and implemented, so it is difficult to assess how challenging implementation. |
Harbor Maintenance Tax: While increasing the harbor maintenance tax on passenger tickets and domestic freight would not require major administrative effort or expansion of legal authority, the portion of the tax imposed on imports could create issues with international rules governing trade (similar to issues associated with increasing customs duties and fees). Further, these taxes do not reach the U.S. exporters who generate much of the local highway use around ports.