Every landowner oppose PA Senate Bill 744 regarding royalty owner taxation

Please join me in opposing PA Senate Bill 744.  Here is a link to the bill:

Link to PA Senate Bill 744

This bill is currently in committee.  It could emerge at any time.  The bill is a serious threat to the financial welfare of royalty owners all across Pennsylvania.  It seeks to countermand a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, very much to our disadvantage.

Gene Yaw, a sponsor of this bill, has made a serious mistake.

Views: 4188

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on February 10, 2013 at 12:46pm
My question is how can they put an assessed value on it when 1st the market fluctuates, 2nd leases % is different and how do they know who has the sweet spot?
Doesn't WV tax minerals?
Permalink Reply by Brian Day on February 10, 2013 at 3:11pm

Quoting Greeks and Romans! Classy!

Permalink Reply by Herbert G. Flavell on February 11, 2013 at 3:26am

I wonder how many more tax they can think of. I created this list and I bet there are more that I either forgot or never heard of.

Natural Gas Facts

1 They create jobs and pay workers that pay income tax

2 They pay registration fees for vehicles

3 They pay a motor fuels tax

4 They pay for a permit to withdraw water from water sources

5 They pay gas well storm water permit for well pads

6 They pay a well bore permit

7 They pay a well permit for each well drilled from the main bore. Can be as many as 12

18 They pay a landowner lease

19 They pay a landowner royalty

20 They pay a Corporation tax

21 They pay a tax on profit to the state

22 They pay a tax on profit to the Fed Govt

23 The landowners pay state tax on  royalties

24 The landowners pay Fed tax on the royalty

25 They repair the roads they use. Something the state gets 44 cents a gallon for but spends on other than roads and bridges.

26 The natural gas buyer pays a tax

27 They pay for permits for pipelines to get gas to market.

28 They pay a land owner for right of way that the land owner pays state tax on.

29 The land owner pays Fed tax on the right of way lease money.

Have I missed anything. That’s already 29 fees the natural gas industry pays

30 Now they have an extraction tax and impact fees, these  will be 30  and 31 fees the industry and landowners pay.

32  I forgot this one silly me. If your land is Clean and Green and the gas company drills a well or uses some of your Clean and Green acres. The used acreage is no longer Clean and Green and is now taxable as non Clean and Green. And if my memory is good the tax on that used acreage is payable by the land owner for the last 7 years that the land owner received a tax discount on that land for Clean and Green even though it was clean and green for that 7 years. There was talk about doing away with that but I am not sure if it passed

33 The land owner pays a tax on the lease money to the state.

34  The land owner pays a tax on the lease money to the Federal Government.

       What will they think of next.

Permalink Reply by Barry Mohler on February 11, 2013 at 10:22am

The State & Feds also tax it when you die even though you already paid tax.

Permalink Reply by BuckinghamGasMan on February 11, 2013 at 6:19am

Regardless of whether or not this gets passed, the value of gas under unleased property should be valued the same as actual gas royalties. In other words, someone without a lease should also be taxed for the value of their gas even if they are not planning on accessing the value. For real estate purposes, the value of the gas has no bearing on how much money you are making today. Other wise, it becomes an income tax not a real estate tax.

Permalink Reply by BuckinghamGasMan on February 11, 2013 at 6:24am

Regardless of whether or not this gets passed, the value of gas under unleased property should be valued the same as actual gas royalties. In other words, someone without a lease should also be taxed for the value of their gas even if they are not planning on accessing the value. For real estate purposes, the value of the gas has no bearing on how much money you are making today. Other wise, it becomes an income tax not a real estate tax.

Permalink Reply by mark ayers on February 11, 2013 at 6:36am

I nominate this as the dumbest post ever...

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on February 11, 2013 at 7:07am

How would a Tax Accessor know (with certainty) if there is any natural gas under a particular property?

If indeed a Tax Accessor could determine  (with certainty) that there is natural gas under a particular property, how would a Tax Accessor determine how much natural gas is there?

If indeed a Tax Accessor could determine (with certainty) how much natural gas is there, how would a Tax Accessor prove that it could be economically produced?

If indeed a Tax Accessor could determine (with certainty) that natural gas could be economically produced, how would a Tax Accessor determine at what rate it could be produced at?

My argument would be that there is no way of knowing whether there were gas under a particular property until a well had been drilled.

My argument would be that there is no way of knowing whether there were economically producible gas under a particular property until a well had been drilled and is placed in production.

My argument would be that there is no way of knowing how much economically producible gas is under a particular property until a well had been drilled and that well has been in production long enough to establish a decline curve.

You cannot count your chickens until the eggs have hatched.

 

JS

 

 

Permalink Reply by Matt Henderson on February 11, 2013 at 7:56am

As was mentioned in one post, this bill was from 2011-12 session. This was also done prior to Act 13 being passed which one component was the impact fee. This bill went nowhere in 2011 and has not been re-introduced this session and most likely will not be. At the time, there was discussion of an impact fee or severance tax and the counties had no way to recoup fees.

This would not overturn the PA Supreme Court 2002 ruling in PIOGA v Fayette as this bill was intending to only tax those receiving royalty payments based on local tax rates - not from landowners who have no production for one reason or another.

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on February 11, 2013 at 8:22am

Elections are held routinely and periodically here in Pennsylvania.  If Democrats prevail next time, this bill will beckon to them like the Lorelei rock.  It is perfect, quintessential, redistributionism.  It takes from us greedy, undeserving, filthy rich royalty owners (but only those of us actually collecting royalties) and redistributes our "ill-gotten" wealth to the many poor-but-honest Pennsylvanians who receive nothing.

I watched Phil Mickelson win the Phoenix Open.  The purse was over a million bucks.  Phil will be paying tax, all included, on that purse at the rate of 63 cents for every dollar he won.  I will benefit, but frankly I don't want Phil's money.  It's his money.  He won it fair and square.  I didn't help.  He should pay some tax, of course.  But not way more than half his winnings for God's sake.  That's nuts.  And so is PA SB 744.  It's confiscatory.  Period!!

And anyone who believes it's permanently dead is seriously in error.

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on February 11, 2013 at 8:52am
Why I feel its relevant is Ohio, NY, or any other state with these resources can draft a similar bill at anytime. I do not believe it needs to be a demecrate since Kasish in Ohio has also looked for ways to add a tax.
Another issue on assessing these minerals is who determines they all have been harvested for the mineral owner to stop paying?
Permalink Reply by Richard Droske on February 11, 2013 at 10:07am

Yes, probably the same ones that want to take away our right to buy our gun of choice. Fortunately I think we can defeat them in any re-election attempt.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service