Midland, I won't disagree with your post, except that there is no reason to tax the one particular train, which has a destination, Lehigh Gorge, and not tax the other trains. And there is no reason to tax the trains without taxing the buses and just possibly taxis, although as you pointed out, the taxis probably pay a tax to the town already.
I stand firmly by that. Thanks.
If you don't believe that charging an "amusement tax" to see a great work of nature isn't trivialization of that work, you have every right to that opinion.
"Amusement tax" is a legal term of art; it doesn't reflect on the form of the 'amusement', only that the service provided is for entertainment.
Note that it is nominally charged to the person, and only incidentally collected by the railroad in this case. The "problem" for LG&N is that it has no way to actually collect the added tax from 'everyone who rode the train' now, but is being made technically liable for what it "should have" collected -- I find this not unusual when governments go after business similarly tasked with collecting sales tax on services, as is the case for my wife's cleaning business in Arkansas and, to a degree, Mississippi. They don't care whether you broke the tax out or added it to your price: they see a volume of business under their jurisdiction in their state, and charge according to that.
The discussion on RyPN is considerably farther advanced than it was 'last week', and I suspect as the situation evolves (RBMN recently announced 'new' Santa trains to Tunkhannock, which couldn't 'get' such trains before the Jim Thorpe bust-up ... so their statement that the Reading or Pottsville trains to Jim Thorpe would continue may be changing) we will see more of interest there. The general present consensus there appears to be that LG&N is, in fact, subject to the tax as constituted, and is unlikely to get out of liability for 'back taxes due' unless they can prove the tax inapplicable to them, which really would happen only in court. Expect Andy to actually provide a cent only when the double-toothpicks are encased in ice, for the duration of the appeals process and perhaps after.
In my opinion any sort of 'ride' that is taken only for pleasure, and which begins and ends at the same spot, counts as 'amusement' for purposes of an entertainment tax. That would be true even if there were a 'break' in the middle for a picnic lunch or restaurant visit. Horse and buggy rides like those we had in downtown Memphis don't 'count' the same as a taxi trip over the same route.
The taxi example proposed before is interesting if we apply Talmudic logic to it. It is clearly entertainment/amusement under the law as formulated if you hire a taxicab, ride around admiring the scenery, and come back to your starting point. But likewise, under the law, (1) it is the 'responsibility' of the patron, not the taxi company, to pay the 'amusement tax', and (2) there is no requirement for the taxi driver to ask 'is this trip for amusement only' (or document that it is) or state that an added surcharge to cover payment of this tax is due. Sure, you could put draconian restrictions in taxi and Uber agreements requiring every customer to state the purpose of the trip, and drivers to document trips and explicitly collect the added tax when trips are strictly for 'pleasure'. But it would become common sense to find ways around imposing the tax -- probably involving some break in journey that makes the 'out' and 'back' trips separately accountable and hence transportation to and from some legitimate destination -- and any attempt to enforce entertainment tax on for-hire vehicles might then become not worth the added revenue.
Back in the 90's I booked a spot at a trade show in Pittsburgh. I was sent several clearly worded letters in advance of the show from the State of Pennsylvania that I had to collect sales tax on the products sold and would have to apply for a permit and number to do so. This I did of course. I was sent reminders that the sales tax must be collected and how and where to remit it to.
This I did faithfully not wanting to get into hot water with the good people of Pennsylvania. Mailed them a money order for well above $200 collected. Sales figures, tax collected, all that jazz.
A couple of months go by and the State of Pennsylvania sends me a cheque back in the amount collected, with an explanation that since I was a Canadian company I was under no obligation to collect the tax. ...or something like that. There was some very un-clearly worded language explaining why I was being sent a cheque.
Never quite understood it all but no argument from me.
The State spent time and money sending me all these requirements along with some stern language and a bunch of hoops to jump through and in the end they sent me back the sales tax collected.
Ok fine, but what the heck? Kind of a license to collect free money. Never felt good about it.
Still stuns me a bit years later.
There is a parallel with exemption from VAT; it's easier to operate under the presumption that the tax is collected fairly 'from everyone' and then on a case-by-case basis refund any sums that don't apply.
Note also that the taxing jurisdiction had the usufruct of your $200 during the time before it was refunded ... but that's likely not part of the reason.
Note that it was the responsibility of the company running the trade show either to note to Pennsylvania that 'foreign entities' not subject to sales tax were participating ... or to note to you that sales tax was not indeed payable and direct you to the appropriate forms to send in to establish that long before any revenue changed hands. It would be logical for a tax agency to pull up the 'attending' list of sellers (which probably did not include nationality explicitly) and write form letters merged from those data that would ensure 'compliance'. It was, I think, extremely fair of them to return that money unsolicited.
daveklepper Midland, I won't disagree with your post, except that there is no reason to tax the one particular train, which has a destination, Lehigh Gorge, and not tax the other trains. And there is no reason to tax the trains without taxing the buses and just possibly taxis, although as you pointed out, the taxis probably pay a tax to the town already. I stand firmly by that. Thanks. If you don't believe that charging an "amusement tax" to see a great work of nature isn't trivialization of that work, you have every right to that opinion.
I have a hard time following wour logic, when you generalize all trains (as if this tourist train was the same as the NEC), however, you split rhetorical hairs on the term "amusement", even with a venn diagram showing all the permutations you think fit. They already seem to tax everything associated with airplanes, so if you think the should start taxing all trains, you could send your suggestions to the government.
They charge an amusement tax to pay for town services the train riders use before they get on the train, not for the privilege of looking at scenery. You already submised that national park fees are to pay for facility maintenance.
Overmod-- "Extremely fair" indeed! I have no idea how it came to be but someone must have flagged something and another someone made a decision. Really it was not my money. Long ago water under the bridge but if the State of Pennsylvania needs $200 in a pinch I will be there!
Yes, but all travelers boarding trains use the Town's services, so the tax, if needed, should be applied to all, and to those boarding buses, who also use the town's services.
If the train to Lehigh Gorge was just a train ride, and nothing else, you would have a point in calling it an amusemnent.
But it is not primarsly a train ride. It is a train to a destination, Lehigh Gorge. Where people view one of nature's awsome views. Aren't most of the travelers on the other trains also tourists? And should it make a difference as to who they are, anyway?
i would not have any problem with a fairly-applied travelers' tax. And possibly Andy Muller would have no problem, also.
I think once the Surface Transportation Board gets involved, the Town's game will be over, because the Town is clearly labeling a transportatoin service a common-carrier railroad is providing as an "amusement."
This thread may be educational, but it's also amusing ...
Would the lawyers of the two sides both consider it amusing?
If you find it both amusing and educational, then you also find it interesting/
I am glad to know that. Possibly Middelman is also glad to know that.
Happy 115th Aniiversary of the New York Citiy Subway.
The lawyers? I'm sure they think it is FABULOUS! The more contentious and drawn out the better.
Yes, it is interesting. And I think we can all agree that it will be a shame if this money dispute really kills off the train for good. Very sad.
There is a possibility that Andy Muller will organize a train to visit the Gorge originating at a more cooperative and appreciative town on the railroad.
The thread being an amusement has absolutely zero to do with the train or the Gorge being amusements. They are not, period. But you are entitled to your own opinion and entitled to speak your own version of the English Language.
And the thread is not an amusement for me. I am much too concerned with passenger train operations and health of railroading in general. But in this case I can see it as an amusement for others who are hobbyist but less concerned and still speak the same Englilsh Language as I speak.
I did not mean to offend you, Dave.
Alternatively, a few miles south of Jim Thorpe is Lehighton, the site of a former major Lehigh Valley RR yard and shop complex - at its northern end is Packerton Jct. It's at the southern end of what shows as a short RBM&N branch line- the northern end is Jim Thorpe. There's a lot of open space there - see N 40.85168 W 75.71250 , and even more Lehigh River scenery from there to Jim Thorpe. It's also that many miles closer to the major roads that lead to JT, especially the PA Turnpike (I-476) and PA 248 and 443, and less miles on US 209 which goes to JT. Said another way, most people driving to JT go through Lehighton first.
- PDN.
I'm afraid I'm in the camp of trips such as this being an amusement.
No one has to take the ride - they do so for the enjoyment of viewing the scenery and - yes - riding the train. No one is riding the train for the purpose of visiting Aunt Mary or conducting business at a distant destination.
In other words, this is not anything resembling an essential service.
What I'm still curious about is why this problem was not discovered some 14 years ago. As has been noted, this would not be money out of the railroad's pocket. The customers would have paid the tax as an add-on to their ticket purchase.
And, as Paul notes, all they have to do in order to continue to offer trips into the Gorge is board their passengers outside the Borough of Jim Thorpe. Problem solved. Even if they stop to allow the passengers some time there.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Is the railroad’s position that they did not know about the tax until they were presented with a bill just this year? Or did they know about the tax, and let the issue slide while believing that it was built into their ticket price if the City ever decided they wanted to collect it?
If it were the latter, they might have rationalized that the more time that passed without the City attempting collection, the less chance they owed it.
I think I read that fourteen other entities in JT pay the amusement tax. I'd be interested to know what sort of businesses those are.
Regarding tree's point, I wonder if Andy would have opposed the tax if he had known about it all along, and could have just rolled it into the ticket prices. Most tourists would not even notice, much less balk. If you want to ride the train, you pay for the ticket. Now maybe Andy DID know all along, and simply opposed it in principal.
Does anyone know what percentage of a ticket price the tax requires? I doubt that part would have been a deal-breaker for anyone.
Is my understanding that JT is trying to collect 10 years of amusement tax? If so, isn't there some application of a staute of limitations?
My thoughts are that is really nothing much more than a steam heated urination contest between conflicting personalities.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
1. My understanding is that nobody at the railroad had any idea that an amusement tax applied to any of their operations until served by a collection agency.
2. In my English vocabulary, a service does not have to be considered essential to be a serious service rather than an amusing one. An enjoyable service that is non-essential, serious, and ejoyable, but not amusing: the cake at a wedding ceremony. Not essential; certain very festive Jewish and Muslem weddings do not include wedding cakes in the festive meal. If you are in camp that considers a train to an awsome natural sight and site, and/or the sight and site itself as amusing, then your English vocabulary has differences from mine. (The cake nned not be awesome, however, and usuallyl is not. But sometimes, indeed, it can be amusing if made delibeately humerous, by amusing figiures for bride and groom, for example.)
Another non-essential trip, vacation trip, that is not amusing is the round-trip to the Gettysburg battlefield, or to Mt. Vernon, Monlticello, and Ashlawn, or to the Washington National Cemetary.
These trips may be enjoyable and non-essential. But in my English language, they are not amusing.
daveklepper In my English vocabulary...
The local law lists those things that the amusement tax applies to. I quoted it a page or two back. Essentially, virtually any event you have to buy a ticket for, or otherwise pay admission, falls within the purview of the law.
Here is the tax rate:
§ 396-59Imposition and rate of tax. A. A tax is imposed, for general revenue purposes, upon the admission fee or privilege to attend or engage in any amusement within Jim Thorpe Borough at the rate of 5% of the established price charged to the general public, or a limited or selected group thereof, which shall be paid by the person acquiring such privilege, and not the owner or operator of such amusements. B. The tax base upon which the tax shall be levied shall be: (1) On admission to golf courses, 40% of the greens fees; (2) On admissions to bowling alleys, 40% of the charge imposed to engage in a game of bowling. (3) On mechanical amusement devices, 100% of gross reciepts; (4) On cover charges, 100% of the increased cost of admission; and (5) On admission to all other amusements, 100% of the cost of admission. C. Where no fixed admission fee is charged per individual, the tax shall be based upon the gross admission fees collected or received. D. The maximum tax imposed on mechanical amusement devices shall be $25 per device per annum.
Amusement is a term that refers to a pastime, diversion, or other enjoyable activity. It may be treated as synonymous with entertainment. It is a pleasurable occupation of the senses. The term may include participative entertainment as well as things of an exhibitory nature. An amusement generally involves the presence of multiple activities. Amusement may also be referred to the passing of time in pleasant or agreeable occupations.
daveklepper... An enjoyable service that is non-essential, serious, and ejoyable, but not amusing:
More convoluted than any contortionist could imagine. It has been explained a number of times that "amusement" in the present context is a legal term, and is not subject to deconstruction for the sake of civil persuasion. Your arguement is rhetorical rather than factual.
"The maximum tax imposed on mechanical amusement devices shall be $25 per device per annum."
According to the law, maybe the railroad only owes $25 per year for the last 10 years. I'm sure they would amend the law for future collections, but then maybe the railroad and town could come to some negotiated agreement. It's always better when the RR and town are in agrement. There are a number of operations where the town and RR got into a bug tussle, and it did not turn out good for the tourist line.
"Mechanical amusement devices" means slot machines, pinball, arcade games. Might mean jukeboxes. Certainly doesn't mean tourist trains.
Train travel for many people is enjoyable. So are all trains amusement devices and train travel per se an amusement?
Seeing something awesome is usually enjoyable, but is it an amusement?
Amusement connotes a lack of seriousness, a seance of lightness, and legal terms should have some relevevance to reality.
I'll stay with my English, thanks.
All this railroad's passenger trains and probably most of what bus servoce the town has serve tourism for noessential trips. The railroad provides transportation to and from destiknations and not amusement. If there is amusement, it is something the passenger and possibly his or her fellow passengers develop.
Another point. If riding the train ia entertainment and thus by your definition also amusement, only a tiny fraction occurs within the Town.
I brought this up on RyPN when I read the appropriate ecode360 listing of the statute. I have not yet seen a discussion of precedent concerning any part of an 'amusement' that takes place outside city limits, but that's the only thing that might establish Jim Thorpe's ability to bill for 'the whole experience' and not just the small and comparatively unvalued part of it that occurs in town.
I also noticed that if the trips were to nominally begin and end just outside of city limits, with a 'free' shuttle bus put on to transport people to and from the train there, it would be technically legal tax avoidance under the statute as written.
I think that Jim Thorpe is within its rights to collect tax at a point of ticket sale within Jim Thorpe for an entertainment partially conducted there ... but not for any more tax than a pro rata share (either on a time or distance basis) for the bit that happens within city limits. I doubt you will find anyone riding the LG&N who thinks that the part of the trip occurring there is worth very much in terms of 'what they came to see and can't see from the town itself', so there won't be much hope if the town's representatives stand up in court and try to assert that boarding in town is a significant enough part of the 'experience' to bill tax for the whole.
I also noted, at least in passing, that if the town attempted to bill an excess of applicable tax ... and, of course, if my interpretation of the statute is correct, they most certainly have -- there may be other applicable law involved. That is particularly so if the town people have conducted anything abusive in their efforts to make the rail entities cough up.
In short, I do think the town has the right to 'tax' LG&N via the 'amusement tax' provision, but the amount they can tax for is probably orders of magnitude less than their 'back taxes' bill, and the recourse available to a resumed LG&N to avoid the tax in future may be substantial.
The above would appear to be applicable if courts decide that the train ride is indeed an amusement/entertainmente/enjoyment (the Town's laws appear to regard these as synonynms, as per Middleman, and contrary to my own understanding of English, which defines them as different but overlapping. The law is what counts in this case.) and "not transportation."
The town picked the Lehigh Gorge run and not the other trips because, as they stated, the train brings riders back to the starting place and not to another destination. I have no knowledge of what the Railroad's lawyers use to counter the claim, and I know enough not to ask. But I think the successful counter claim is that the Gorge is a destination, and the railroad simply provides transportation to and from the Gorge.
Regarding the need for good relations between the railroad and the Town, there is no record of prior disputes to my knowledge, and as far as I can tell the railroad has tried to be a good citizen. It was the Town that percipitated the dispute, and using a collection agency to notify the railroad indicates that the Town does not seem intersted in the worth of a good relationship.
The railroad property near the Town but outside it could be a gold mine. All passenger operations could be moved to originate there, a Lehigh Gorge Hotel constructed, a camping ground, restaurants, a filling station, and plenrty of parking. Possibly tennis courts, a football field, etc.
daveklepper I have no knowledge of what the Railroad's lawyers use to counter the claim, and I know enough not to ask.
You could certainly ask, and they might tell you. But this is not the place to ask, and certainly not the place to 'telegraph' what your strategy in actual court might be. You'd have to contact someone at RBMN directly.
We're only talking possibilities and applicable law here.
I think the successful counterclaim is that the Gorge is a destination, and the railroad simply provides transportation to and from the Gorge.
The issue here, as with a variety of other services, is whether it actually does that by a legal definition of transportation. You may recall that a different railroad rather cleverly tried extending its run to just cross a state line, then try to claim this was 'interstate transportation'. This "failed to thrive", and out of this came a couple of commonsense 'tests' that could be used to define when an operation is legitimate 'transportation' (meaning a common-carrier from one point to another) vs. when it is 'amusement' (meaning something that begins and ends at a common point, provided as a pastime).
One of these is that one-way ticketing needs to be provided, and some objective proof made that a substantial number of such tickets are used and it's not just a dodge to avoid an otherwise-applicable tax. Another of these is that there are clear facilities at any 'remote' end, at which riders could be picked up or discharged or at which are facilities they have some reason to reach. There have certainly been 'common-carrier' trains in the past that provided shopping access for people, and it might be noted that any train from "elsewhere" to Jim Thorpe is explicitly not being considered for the tax, so shuttle buses at the "Old Penn Haven" end connecting to shopping or other commercial attractions might qualify as a reason for exemption ... but they probably can't just be continuations of the train ride to other sources of amusement.
... as far as I can tell the railroad has tried to be a good citizen. It was the Town that percipitated the dispute, and using a collection agency to notify the railroad indicates that the Town does not seem interested in the worth of a good relationship.
I think this is near the heart of why Andy is so very upset at the situation. I think it is very clear that Jim Thorpe as a group of citizens gets at least as much as LG&N out of the 'tourist draw'; the problem is that the political administration in town wants their additional slice of pie too, without seemingly providing anything in any proportion to the demanded revenue.
And then gets nasty about it.
The railroad property near the Town but outside it could be a gold mine. All passenger operations could be moved to originate there, a Lehigh Gorge Hotel constructed, a camping ground, restaurants, a filling station, and plenty of parking. Possibly tennis courts, a football field, etc.
Doubt the development cost would be recoverable in actual revenue. Those things would best be outsourced (or developed as some kind of PUD, perhaps); RBMN to my knowledge is not associated with a building or developing company, although I'm sure Andy Muller 'knows people in the biz'.
And there is still the question whether an excursion service going through (but not stopping in) Jim Thorpe is subject to a pro-rata share of 'amusement' for the portion in transit, which I think will be determined in court 'eventually' in this matter and which a number of people on RyPN are following with some interest. If the property in question is 'south' of Jim Thorpe, this becomes a direct issue.
To my admittedly defective knowledge, the next 'large' attraction running north is considerably further than Old Penn Haven, and it may not be attractive to run that long a distance or a trip, especially if the amenities at the "other end" are not particularly good. That is especially so if the business model involves multiple trips a day.
And just how much is the amusement tax on a RT ride? Seems to me the railroad got away with tax avoidance for years and now, when called to task on it, threatens to end the excursion rides to try to blackmail the town into a lower settlement.
Did they "Get Away" or is the current mayor looking for new revenue and expanding the scope?
Shame on the city if they were supposed to collect this 14+ years ago.
I am sure the 10 years back payment is what is causing the issue. If they said starting Jan 1 you need to start collecting this, it may be a different story.
But I am sure there is much much more going on than what we are reading.
charlie hebdoAnd just how much is the amusement tax on a RT ride?
That's very clear, 5% in Jim Thorpe. What is not yet clear is how much 'outside of' Jim Thorpe. As the statute is written, it seems clear to me that any part of the RT ride outside city limits is not taxable under any statute visible in ecode360.
They would still be able to collect tax for the part within city limits, and they would collect it from individuals at the point of ticket sale or boarding, and the railroad could be made accountable for providing the corresponding amount 'per customer' if the city didn't do it directly (which they evidently never did).
The first 'finding of fact' does need to be whether LG&N's trips constitute 'amusement' under the statute. The second is whether something mostly conducted outside city limits can be taxed on its full value as though it were. The third is -- if it cannot, as I think will be the case -- how the basis for the tax can legally be determined (and this would effectively constitute new law, and may require action by the Pennsylvania legislature to amend). Now, that "might" theoretically involve a determination that the whole value of services rendered may be assessable based wholly on the point of origin, or split between the points of origin and destination, but I think that is comparatively unlikely for procedural reasons as well as political ones.
I suspect all this will come up in some context before any judgment on taxes "due" can be enforced on RBMN, but we may not read anything about it in general press coverage. On the other hand, this is a highly relevant subject to organizations like ARM/TRAIN, and it will be interesting to see if they participate in pending litigation...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.