-
Tom Butt for Richmond City Council The Tom Butt E-Forum About Tom Butt Platform Endorsements of Richmond Councilmember Tom Butt Accomplishments Contribute to Tom Butt for Richmond City Council Contact Tom Butt Tom Butt Archives
-
E-Mail Forum
RETURN
Contra Costa Times Editorializes Proposed Refinery Tax Cuts

The following editorial and front page story appeared in yesterdayís Contra Costa Times. Many of you have asked what you can do about this. Frankly, I donít know, but if I come up with something, Iíll let you know.

Posted on Sun, Apr. 16, 2006

EDITORIAL

Refineries' tax cuts threaten public services
 

IF THREE REFINERIES in Contra Costa County succeed in getting their property taxes lowered to what they want to pay, 146 public agencies will suffer, some of them severely. The county, cities, school districts, emergency services and hospitals would have to return $70 million to the refineries and then cut $30 million a year from future budgets.

This is the dire warning issued by the Contra Costa County Administrator's Office. If fairness prevails, the three refineries will continue to pay the assessed tax or something close to it. But that is far from certain.

It is not unusual for huge oil refineries to appeal their property taxes, which are among the largest in the area, according to Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer. He is the one who determines residential and business property values upon which tax assessments are calculated. He said the refineries typically file an appeal, then they meet with the assessor to discuss property values and come to a reasonable agreement.

Unfortunately, this time around, the refineries are not even talking with Kramer even though he has suggested they meet.

The timing of the refineries' appeal for significantly lower property taxes couldn't be worse. Not only are oil companies earning record high profits, but also many of the public agencies that rely on property tax revenues are already under serious financial pressure.

Should the three refineries win their appeals, there would be dire consequences. The county may have to return $9.4 million to the refineries and reduce future budgets by $5.3 million each year.

The city of Richmond would have to give back $1.7 million and cut its annual budget by $5.2 million. The West Contra Costa school district would have to return $3.6 million and cut next year's budget by $5 million.

Both the city and school district are in financial trouble and are trying hard to gain fiscal stability and still provide adequate services. The tax loss from a successful refinery appeal would be devastating.

The Contra Costa Fire Protection District, which serves seven cites, including Walnut Creek, Concord and Lafayette, would have to give the refineries $4.8 million and reduce its budget by $700,000.

East Bay Parks would lose $2 million up front and have to cut future budgets by $1.1 million a year. County libraries would suffer a blow because they would have to return $1 million to the refineries and cut back already tight budgets by $319,000 a year.

The fate of the county, cities and other public agencies is in the hands of a three-member assessment appeals board, which is appointed by the county supervisors. It is the board's duty to take a close look at the value of the refineries and establish an equitable assessment.

Determining a fair property tax assessment is not easy, but what the oil firms are seeking appears to be substantially lower than what is reasonable.

Chevron in Richmond has appealed to lower its assessed value from $2.64 billion to $800 million. That would cut its property tax bill by 70 percent, from $28.6 million to just $8.6 million. Shell in Martinez wants its tax bill reduced by 63 percent, from $18.2 million to $6.7 million. ConocoPhillips in Rodeo is seeking a tax cut of 35 percent.

Unlike residential real estate, assessing business property, especially refineries, is far from simple. Under Proposition 13, houses are assessed for their selling price at the time of sale. Then assessments can rise 2 percent a year regardless of the houses' true market value.

When assessing refineries, assessors need to calculate a refinery's current and future income to determine the market value of the facility. That is a daunting task because of wide fluctuations in gasoline prices and the ability of oil firms to shuffle revenue and profits among a series of transactions and related operations.

Adding to the assessment woes is a loophole that is available to most businesses, including refineries. The law allows for separate assessments of permanently installed business machines and equipment, known as fixtures.

Under state law, fixtures can be depreciated as they age and lose value because of wear and tear. Fixtures account for about 80 percent of a refinery's property value. That allows the refinery to reduce the value of its fixtures at a faster rate than the 2 percent annual increase in the value of land and buildings. Thus a refinery's value, property tax assessments can actually decline over the years.

With a huge increase in oil companies' profits in the past two years, there is little public or political sympathy for refineries that seek lower assessments, while homeowners pay more and more. Also, there is the threat to enact Rule 474, which would end refineries' ability to depreciate fixtures. This is a political reality that should give refineries pause to seek such large decreases in property tax assessments.

It is difficult for us to believe that Chevron would sell its Richmond refinery for the $800 million it claims it is worth. Nor would Shell likely sell its refinery for the $650 million it says is a fair assessment. That is especially true now with skyrocketing gasoline prices that continue to rise faster than the price of crude oil.

We agree with Kramer for calling refinery owners "shameless" for seeking massive reductions in their tax bills. Property taxes are a relatively small percentage of oil firms' income, but would be a major loss for local governments.

We believe a fair solution should result in assessments far closer to current assessed valuations than what the refineries seek. The refineries would be wise to reach an agreement that does not lead to imposition of Rule 474, which could spread to other businesses as well.

But if refiners insist on cutting their tax bills by up to 70 percent, then assessors and legislators would be motivated to enact Rule 474 and disallow depreciation of fixtures.

 

Posted on Sun, Apr. 16, 2006

 

 



Oil firms' taxes spur arguments


CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Governments vigorously tax oil companies for the same reason legendary criminal Willie Sutton robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is."

Take the owners of the five East Bay refineries. As a group, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Valero and Tesoro posted 2005 profits of more than $58 billion, as soaring fuel prices boosted their total sales to $859 billion.

A portion of that money went to finance the operations of governments. The five companies paid $41 billion in income taxes in the United States and other nations during 2005, according to company financial filings.

Those companies also handed over to governments $112 billion in other taxes -- mostly sales and excise taxes. Jonathan Williams, an economist with the pro-business Tax Foundation, said that the oil companies "are bearing a very substantial load, not only in dollar terms but percentage terms as well."

But with so much money at stake, oil company taxation is a frequent source of controversy -- even at the local level. For example, four East Bay refinery owners -- Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips and Valero -- are currently battling with local officials over millions of dollars in property tax liabilities. The refiners seek a cut of as much $39 million from their $66 million annual property tax tabs in Contra Costa and Solano counties.

With profits mounting, some lawmakers and oil company critics think that oil companies can and should pay more. "Even the president has said the country is addicted to oil," said Tyson Slocum, a researcher with Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy organization. Dealing with that addiction will require spending on conservation, research and development of new fuels, and mass transit, he says.

Since energy crises in the 1970s highlighted America's dependence on oil imports and vulnerability to price spikes, tax policy has also become an arena for competition between proponents of competing energy strategies. A recent study by the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service observed that energy taxes reflected the politics of competing political, economic, bureaucratic and academic interest groups. Energy tax policy "does not generally, if ever, adhere to the principles of economic, or public finance, theory," the study found.

That all adds up to a recipe for tax rules that even leave experts scratching their heads. "Energy taxation is one of the most complicated areas of tax policy," said Williams, the Tax Foundation economist.

Historically, lawmakers have often sought to use energy tax policy to encourage companies to find and produce more oil and gas. But sometimes the results have startled the policymakers.

Recently, legislators from both sides of the aisle have reacted with outrage to reports that oil companies could pocket more than $76 billion that would normally have been paid as royalties for natural gas extracted from federal property. That windfall can be traced back to a law passed in 1995 that sought to encourage development of natural gas resources during a period of low energy prices. It suspended royalty collections on wells drilled in deep coastal waters.

After the law was passed, the U.S. Interior Department signed contracts that allowed companies to keep the royalties only so long as energy prices remained below certain ceilings. However, soaring prices and contracts signed in 1998 and 1999 that inexplicably omitted the ceilings have boosted the value of the incentives. Existing arrangements will divert $17 billion from the treasury, and a pending lawsuit that challenges the price ceilings in all the contracts could cost another $59 billion, the Government Accountability Office recently estimated.

As that example shows, oil companies have demonstrated the political clout and accounting expertise to more than hold their own in the energy policy arena. Yet these days, consumer frustration with high fuel prices and anger at mounting oil company wealth have prompted politicians to take on the oil giants.

The U.S. government taxes the profits of oil companies at the same rate as other corporations: 35 percent. Some state and local governments also tax income, as do foreign governments in countries where multinational firms like Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips operate.

Critics think a greater portion of oil company profits should be tapped to finance those efforts. "We're not talking about ending the ability of the companies to be profitable," said Slocum of Public Citizen. "We're just asking them to contribute a bigger share to making these investments."

Politicians have responded with proposals to tax so-called windfall profits. During the current session of Congress, nine members of the House and five senators have filed a total of 16 bills that would impose temporary or permanent windfall profits taxes on oil or gas producers.

So far, none has made much headway in the Republican-controlled Congress. But there is more than one way to sock it to an oil giant. Tax legislation now awaiting action by a House-Senate conference committee includes a change in inventory accounting rules that would add $4.3 billion to the tax tab of some large oil companies. However, the measure's sponsor, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has acknowledged that opposition in the House makes it unlikely that the provision will be written into law this year.

States also seek ways to take a bite out of oil company windfalls. In California, Assemblyman Johan Klehs, D-Hayward, has led the charge to target oil companies for additional taxation. In January, the Assembly defeated, in a 43-28 vote, his proposal for a temporary 2.5 percent tax on windfall profits of oil producers and refiners. That bill defined as a windfall any profits that exceeded average profits over the five previous years -- if those excess profits grew more quickly than fuel sales.

The tax would have raised $140 million in the current fiscal year, and smaller amounts in the two succeeding years, according to the state Franchise Tax Board. Passage would have required a two-thirds vote and the governor's signature.

Not easily discouraged, Klehs quickly introduced a new windfall profits bill. This one, a surtax on all profits above $10 million, would raise an estimated $120 million in its first year, and $190 million two years out, according to Rebecca Marcus, a spokeswoman for Klehs. This month, in a move that lowered the vote required for passage to a simple majority, Klehs amended his bill to allocate the revenue to subsidize prescription drugs for low- and moderate-income seniors, Marcus said. A hearing on the bill is set for April 24.

Some countries and states have sought to tie taxes to the production and sale of crude oil and gas. At least 27 states collect so-called severance taxes on oil producers, including Texas with 2003 revenue of $1.5 billion and Alaska with $1.1 billion in revenue, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group for oil well owners and operators.

Although California is the nation's third-largest producer of oil, it has no severance tax. And although the state did collect $214 million in property taxes from oil producers in 2003, that trailed the severance tax revenue of $481 million in Louisiana, $572 million in New Mexico and $601 million in Oklahoma -- each a state that produced less than half California's volume of oil.

A ballot initiative currently being circulated for signatures would impose a tax ranging from 1.5 percent to 6 percent on the gross value of oil produced in California. The tax would be applied to oil from all but the smallest wells, about 165 million barrels annually, and the revenue, which the Legislative Analysts' Office estimates would range from $200 million to $380 million annually, would be spent on alternative energy research and development.

Oil companies and anti-tax groups have denounced the initiative and argued that it would increase the cost of fuel. Backers have responded by releasing poll results showing public support for higher taxes on oil companies and more investment in alternative energy.

Rick Jurgens covers energy and business. Reach him at 925-943-8088 or at rjurgens@cctimes.com.

BIG BILLS

2005 taxes of companies that own local refineries (in millions of dollars)

Item (in million dollars) Chevron ConocoPhillips Shell Valero Tesoro Total

Revenue 198,200 183,364 379,008 82,162 16,581 859,315

Net income 14,099 13,529 26,261 3,590 507 57,986

Income taxes 11,098 9,907 17,999 1,697 324 41,025

Excise, sales and other non-income taxes 20,782 18,356 72,277 807 139 112,361

Chevron's 2005 taxes (in millions of dollars)

Revenue 198,200

Net income 14,099

Income taxes 11,098

US federal 2,026

US state & local 409

International 8,663

Non-income taxes 20,782

Excise 8,719

US 4,521

International 4,198

Import duties and other levies 10,547

US 8

International 10,466

Property 927

US 392

International 535

Production 461

US 323

International 138

Payroll 201

US 149

International 52

RETURN