15 MB - Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of Minnesota is reported in 2005 dollars. Value Added, Employment and Outputmeasures are modeled here with three effects, sometimes referred to as “rounds ofspending”: the direct effect (the initial new spending), the indirect effect (additional interindustryspending), and an induced effect (additional household expenditure from thedirect and indirect impact). The modeling shows that for every million dollars inincreased maritime shipping activity, the economy of Minnesota could see an additionaltotal Value Added impact of $581,519, an additional $500,000 in Output, and almosteight new jobs added to the economy.The report concludes by noting: Analysis of the federal assessment structure for currentGreat Lakes maritime commerce shows an array of 119 various fees, duties, taxes andother assessments. Among these the Harbor Maintenance Tax deserves special andimmediate attention for reform as a failed taxation system that arose out of the “user feefever” of the 1980s.A substantial portion of the HMT’s tax base was found to be unconstitutional by the U.S.Supreme Court, leaving an unbalanced, unfair and excessive tax in effect. The HarborMaintenance Trust Fund continues to grow well beyond the amounts expended for harbormaintenance. At least nine attempts have been made to reform this failed system in thepast ten years, none of which were successful. It’s time for Congress to abolish thisfailed method of taxation and replace the revenue stream with funds from either theTreasury’s general fund or funds generated by an increase in the diesel fuel excise tax.x
Chapter 1: Introduction1.1 Research issue.This project inventories the tax impact on the Great Lakes marine transportation systemimposed by federal regulations. This project also identifies the unique tax burdens placedon the commercial maritime regulatory process in the Great Lakes, and presents ananalysis of the Great Lakes maritime tax structure focusing on its most significant tax, theHarbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). Finally this project discusses possible changes to thecurrent tax structure to improve the efficiency of port maintenance tax collection andexpenditure; as well as to improve intermodal transportation fuel efficiency.This study was funded by a grant from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute.The contract for this study has the following project description:This topic addresses the tax impact on the Great Lakes (GL) marinetransportation system (MTS) imposed by federal tax codes and regulations.This project will attempt to identify the unique tax burdens placed on thecommercial maritime regulatory process in the Great Lakes.This project proposes to recommend methods for decreasing the tax impact onGreat Lakes shipping from both a tax burden and a compliance standpoint and tooffer a viable option for government to help ease the tax complexities thatshipping companies face.The primary public policy intent of this study is to advance understanding of the taxstructure of commercial maritime transportation on the Great Lakes.The primary purpose of this study for the research team at the Labovitz School ofBusiness and Economics is to accomplish the contract’s goals and objectives, and tofurther the discussion of the possibilities for increasing efficiency in the relationshipbetween tax policy and commercial maritime operations.1
Page 3 and 4:
Mission StatementThe Great Lakes Ma
Page 5 and 6:
Technical Report Documentation1. Re
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTSOverview and Backg
Page 9 and 10:
Overview and Background:During Marc
Page 11 and 12:
Advisory Board:One of the first tas
Page 13 and 14:
University of MichiganDr. Armin Tro
Page 15 and 16:
Specific Project Awards to Universi
Page 17 and 18:
- October 8, 2005 GLMRI Affiliate U
Page 19 and 20:
- October 7, 2006 The 2 nd GLMRI Af
Page 21 and 22:
SeawaySized Bulk Carrier Model fo
Page 23 and 24:
Table of Contentspage1. Introductio
Page 25 and 26:
List of FigurespageFigure 2.1: Typi
Page 27 and 28:
2. BackgroundThe initial Sea Grant
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 2.2: Typical Forward Plenum
Page 31 and 32:
Table 3.1: BallastFree Bulk Carri
Page 33 and 34:
4. Model Construction ConstraintsTh
Page 35 and 36:
6. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CF
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 6.3: Velocity Vectors at the
Page 39 and 40:
8. Model ConstructionThe model of t
Page 41 and 42:
9. Potential Economic Impacts of th
Page 43:
Expanding Regional Freight Informat
Page 47 and 48: ___________________________________
Page 49 and 50: Workshop participants also effectiv
Page 51 and 52: information to share with governmen
Page 53 and 54: Most of this information has been c
Page 55 and 56: A New Perspective on Information De
Page 57 and 58: • Assemble data and report inform
Page 59 and 60: Looking Ahead: Next StepsThe main o
Page 61 and 62: Again, according to MISNA, the mari
Page 63: References Cited[1] Maritime Inform
Page 67: Schematic Diagram of the Structure
Page 71 and 72: Example 1: Basic Mapping FunctionsF
Page 73 and 74: Figure B.7User now queries the port
Page 75 and 76: Example 3: Mapping the NetworkFigur
Page 77: APPENDIX CCode Specifications for G
Page 80 and 81: Michigan: 01 Alpena 19 Marine C
Page 83: APPENDIX DMeeting Participants in t
Page 86: Tax Systems and Barriersto Great La
Page 89 and 90: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 91 and 92: The HMT Generates Substantially Mor
Page 93 and 94: vii
Page 95: paid by the now terminated Incan Su
Page 99 and 100: presentation, “A Transportation I
Page 101 and 102: − United States General Accountin
Page 103 and 104: − Short Sea Vessel Service and Ha
Page 105 and 106: Detailed views of these data presen
Page 107 and 108: Guarantee Fee for MARAD'sTitle XI P
Page 109 and 110: Table 2.4: Great Lakes Assessments
Page 115 and 116: Table 2.10: Duty Assessments on Gre
Page 117 and 118: Certification Fee for Payment of Ve
Page 119 and 120: 6) HMT TablesAs noted above and in
Page 121 and 122: Table 2.14: Total Bid Dollars by Co
Page 123 and 124: 2003 Arcadia Harbor, Mi $33,2462003
Page 125 and 126: Chapter 3: The U.S. Harbor Maintena
Page 127 and 128: providing for - (1) revenue from im
Page 129 and 130: Community’s RC. No panel has been
Page 131 and 132: evenue to fund current and future h
Page 133 and 134: The Support for Harbor Investment P
Page 135 and 136: Table 3.3: Percent Change in U.S. F
Page 137 and 138: Harbor Maintenance Tax Time Line198
Page 139 and 140: Table 4.3: Output ImpactIndustry Di
Page 141 and 142: ReferencesChapter 1[1] Stewart, Ric
Page 143 and 144: [31] United States V. United States
Page 145 and 146: [66] American Association of Port A
Page 147 and 148:
Appendix A: Tax Inventory DataSourc
Page 149 and 150:
Overview of Maritime Tax Inventory
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
31 U.S.C. 9701; P.L. 100-710, 46 C.
Page 157 and 158:
Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as amen
Page 159 and 160:
Reform Act of 1998, P. L. 105-258,
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix C: Detailed HMT TimelineHA
Page 163 and 164:
complete and refunds are issued.Imp
Page 165 and 166:
There was unexpected good news for
Page 167 and 168:
Articles... assembled abroad in who
Page 169 and 170:
that each and every regulation is s
Page 171 and 172:
Another challenge to the HMF as app
Page 173 and 174:
Appendix D: Estimating Harbor Maint
Page 175 and 176:
D-3
Page 177 and 178:
Alternatives to Petroleum Based Fue
Page 179 and 180:
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary
Page 181 and 182:
Table 4.10:Great Lakes Biodiesel Pl
Page 183 and 184:
of a longterm lowtemperature st
Page 185 and 186:
Chapter 1: Overview1.1 Introduction
Page 187 and 188:
Chapter 2: Biodiesel: An Alternativ
Page 189 and 190:
2.2.2 Properties of BiodieselThe pr
Page 191 and 192:
e renewable fuels (e.g. ethanol and
Page 193 and 194:
2.4 Engine Test DataSummaries of th
Page 195 and 196:
OEM manufacturer should be consulte
Page 197 and 198:
A review of the literature addressi
Page 199 and 200:
credit and a biodiesel mixture cred
Page 201 and 202:
Figure 2: U.S. Diesel DemandMoving
Page 203 and 204:
Demand Forecast. Table 3.4 below sh
Page 205 and 206:
fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) be us
Page 207 and 208:
Minnesota incentivesTable 3.11: Min
Page 209 and 210:
Figure 3: Glycerin as Market RiskSo
Page 211 and 212:
Figure 4: Great Lakes Region IMPLAN
Page 213 and 214:
Definitions used in this report:Mea
Page 215 and 216:
column shows that in Year 1 of cons
Page 217 and 218:
Operations. Tables below show the e
Page 219 and 220:
When operations for the biodiesel p
Page 221 and 222:
verify that separation of the blend
Page 223 and 224:
was considered the hot topic, very
Page 225 and 226:
ReferencesChapter 1No referencesCha
Page 227 and 228:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p37
Page 229 and 230:
Appendix A: Demand and Supply Suppo
Page 231 and 232:
Table A2: Minnesota Soybean Produ
Page 233 and 234:
Table A6: Marine Diesel Sales, Co
Page 236:
Table of ContentsSections Page #1.
Page 239 and 240:
2. Introduction: Background and Obj
Page 241 and 242:
3. MethodsThe LLO has a surveygra
Page 243 and 244:
Figure 2. Sidescan sonar mosaic of
Page 245 and 246:
Figure 4. Single track (detailed) s
Page 247 and 248:
Figure 7. Single track (detailed) s
Page 249 and 250:
Figure 10. Detailed multibeam bathy
Page 251 and 252:
5. Potential Economic Impacts of th
Page 253 and 254:
Final Report: Great Lakes Maritime
Page 255 and 256:
Evaluation Measures and ResultsTo e
Page 257 and 258:
Appendix ASummary of Publicity & Re
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix BGreat Lakes Maritime Tran
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix DGreat Lakes Maritime Tran
Page 263 and 264:
REFERENCESDuluth Port Authority. 20
Page 265 and 266:
Steel Starts Here (12:00 minutes) b
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix FGreat Lakes Shipping: Did
Page 269 and 270:
15. What are the top 3 products shi
Page 271 and 272:
Properly Loaded Ship Listing ShipHO
Page 273 and 274:
FoghornGreenhouse gasGroundedHarbor
show all

15 MB - Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?