Maine Municipal Tax Collectors' & Treasurers' Association
Home	Training	Executive Board		Publications	Links	Forms

Posted by David Little, Bangor, March 1, 2010:

Below is an excerpt from the Legislative Bulletin put out by the Maine Municipal Association (MMA).  The article talks about LD 195 An Act to Base the Excise Tax on Vehicles on a Percentage of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price.  This bill would essentially reduce the MSRP to 90% before applying the excise tax mill rates.  Both MMA and the MMTCTA opposed this bill and while the Taxation Committee voted it down, the split vote from that Committee moved the bill to floor.  The House recently upheld the “ought not to pass” vote and now the Senate will cast their votes this week.

The word on the street is that the Senate may vote to approve this bill and send it back to the House.  Why the Senate is looking to support a $20 million dollar cut to municipal revenues is unclear but apparently a real possibility.

Please inform your municipal officials as soon as possible and encourage them to contact your Senate representatives.  This bill needs to be voted down in the Senate and killed.

from the Legislative Bulletin , February 26, 2010

The January 15th edition of the Legislative Bulletin described a carryover bill that would slash municipal excise tax revenue. LD 195, An Act to Base the Excise Tax on Vehicles on a Percentage of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price , would cut municipal excise tax revenue by 10% each year, or by over $20 million annually. The bill accomplishes that result by applying an across-the-board 10% reduction to the value of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, against which the various excise tax rates are applied.

LD 195 is sponsored by Rep. Gary Knight, of Livermore Falls, who is a member of the Taxation Committee.

At the Committee level, LD 195 was given a divided “Ought Not to Pass” report. The Democrats on the Committee voted to kill the bill. The Republicans on the Committee voted to support the $20 million cut to municipal excise tax revenue.

The “ought not to pass” report was accepted by the House. By a vote of 87-49, largely along party lines, the House agreed with the Tax Committee and voted to kill the bill.

LD 195 is now before the Senate. We are told that there is a possibility the Senate could vote to support LD 195, which would keep the bill alive for further consideration.

Municipal officials should contact their State Senators and ask them how they intend to vote on LD 195. Something along the lines of $250 million are being cut to local governments in the state budgets either already enacted or being considered this year. It is hard to believe that legislators are proposing an additional $20 million cut to municipal government in this environment, just four months after Maine's voters absolutely crushed a similar proposal offered as a citizens' initiative. But only your State Senators can tell you for sure how they are planning to vote on LD 195. Please give them a call.

Responses: Dave.......When I read the article Friday, I had admin. send out an email to our legislative delegation encouraging them to vote NO . This latest attempt to change excise tax must be killed once and for all.  As I said many times before.  We continue to win the battles, but at some point, we may lose the war.  You would think that, after the resounding NO vote "by the people" last November, that it would have died. Unfortunately, even if the Senate kills the think, another version will be back in 2010 and we'll be making another pitch to kill it again. (Paul LaBrecque, Lewiston)

I LIKE LD 195. And what business does MMA have in promoting or discouraging ANY bill? The towns ARE the people---if it is good for the PEOPLE, then it is good for the TOWN. The PEOPLE will either tighten up their municipal budgets, or they will raise more from property taxes. EITHER way the PEOPLE are paying for whatever they want/need to do in town. Why does the excise tax have to be so prohibitively high? What about a business person who needs a truck/van/car for his business? What about the car dealers whose businesses suffer becuase of the high excise tax in this state?

The Senate is not of course looking to cut town revenue, but rather responding to the cries, the pleas, the letters, calls, and emails of the citizens saying we are taxed ENOUGH. The people perhaps want to keep their own money in their own pockets, and spend it how they wish. Municipal governments exist only to serve their citizens; they have no existence without the citizens; the services "provided" are up to the citizens, and how to pay for the services is also up to them.

Furthermore, a decrease in the excise tax rate or in the amount the tax is based on may in fact mean more people will buy more expensive cars, so that the actual excise tax collection stays more or less flat. (Cindy Reilly, Sedgwick)