federal excise tax

[Haverde Warner]

Is the FET added in on my final total from Shiloh, or does my receiving dealer collect it? Still months away, but I'm wondering.

[Smokin]

Haverde Warner,

The manufacturer collects it and submits it to the Feds. At the rate they keep raking it in, wouldn't you think that at some point the plate would get full? The special tax on sporting goods, Pittman-Robertson I think, is supposedly earmarked for game and sporting related things: making a new trout stream; restocking buffalo to the plains; digging a lake in Texas so our Lonestar friends can see what water looks like-that sort of stuff.

It's not an unsubstantial sum. It helps to be sitting. Good luck

[Ken Hartlein]

Actually I know where there's a lake at in Texas, so we really don't need it. Shiloh will want your FET and shipping when your rifle is ready to ship, at least that's the way it was on mine. I think it's 11% of 70% of the total not including sights, this is strickly from memory and I'm sure I'll be correted. I cain't spell vury gud either.

[Lee Stone]

An interesting side light to the FET is that if the rifle is paid for in advance at the time the order is placed, Shiloh is not allowed to collect the tax at that time. When I placed my orders, I wanted to get that out of the way too, but Uncle Sugar will not allow it because Shiloh "might earn interest on dear old Uncle's money" and tax is not actually due until the actual transfer of ownership. Don't you just love government bureaucracy?

[Haverde Warner]

Actually, I can see a lake from my back porch, but it's probably not big enough to ski on! Fascinating replies. I knew FET was 11%, but on only 70% of the total (less sights)? I hope it's on list, not on the options, as I managed to more than double the base price on mine with options. Thanks for the info.

[ironramrod]

Gentlemen,

I think I can perhaps ease your minds somewhat on the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

In my professional career I was a biologist with North Dakota Game and Fish for 33 years. In professional wildlife management 75% of every dollar spent by the states for wildlife management (e.g. surveys, development, research, etc.) comes from the federal excise tax. The original law (Pittman Robinson Act) was passed by congress in 1935 at the insistence of sportsmen of the day. The objective was to improve wildlife densities through scientific wildlife management by providing money from the federal excise tax. The money is collected by the Feds and portioned back to the individual states based on license sales and population. The money is earmarked and can only be used for wildlife management and related activities. It cannot be used for law enforcement, politics, the good ole boys benevolent fund or whatever. Some states have gone to the cleaners in the past for improper use of this money.

Over the last 70 years this has been a hallmark piece of legislation for wildlife management. From the very outset many populations that were in serious trouble began to show improvements in population densities. Most of the good, huntable populations we enjoy today are a direct result of this law. Many species that were virtually unhuntable in the early 1900's because of extremely low densities are almost taken for granted now. For example, turkeys, giant Canada geese, virtually all big game species are some outstanding examples. Additionally, the myriad of wildlife management areas that many states have in place are directly attributable to this law.

There is a huge amount of money involved nationally, and needless to say there have been numerous attempts to siphon this money off for political objectives. The latest to attempt to gain control over this money for political ambitions was Bill Clinton; no surprise there, huh. Anyway, the law is so carefully and tightly written there are virtually no loopholes at all that can be exploited by politics. That doesn't always happen, but this law is that way. Congress doesn't always do the right thing, but in this case they did.

I agree that 11% excise tax is a lot of money, but I hope I have put everyone at ease that this may very well be the best 11% we could invest in the present and for the future. Myself, I can easily think of 5 or 6 taxes that should go in the toilet immediately if not sooner. However, if it weren't for this earmarked 11% federal excise tax, there may very well not be nearly as many reasons to own a Shiloh Sharps.

Regards

[Ray Newman]

From the Shiloh ordering form for any rifle:

“7. Federal Excise Tax is based on totally selling price of the firearm INCLUDING ANY ADDED CUSTOM FEATURES, EXCLUDING SIGHTS, LESS SHIPPING AND HANDLING. TAX IS PAID BY CUSTOM AT TIME OF DELIVERY.”

As an aside, @ one time CPA Corp. (Stevens 44 1/2 reproductions) was able not to collect the FET as their rifles were not complete when shipped to the buyer/FRFL dealer.

The only thing that the buyer had to do to make the rifle "complete" was to apply a finish on the wood . I don’t know if this still is the case, but approx 4 yrs. ago when I bought my CPA 44 ½ Stevens .22 Schuetzen I did not pay FET as the stock was unfinished.

[Ray Newman]

Ironramrod: agreed!

[Texas Shooter]

Haverde:

I to wish it was only the "base", but unfortunitely, I beleive it to be WITH all options, less sights. Or I believe, anything you send in to put on the gun. (ie. Wood Blank for the stock) I think Ammo has the same tax on it.

Just be glad most of us don't have to pay sales tax on top of that! Ouch!

Why counldn't they just charge 7.7% of the total instead of 11% of 70%?

Leave it to a Democrat for something THAT convoluted.

Texas Shooter

[Haverde Warner]

Oh, well. I obviously never read the order form, did I? Never doubted the goodness of the tax (can hardly believe I just typed that-), just wondered who I paid it to. Now I know-and on the total.