-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
FET
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
You'll never generally hear about it unless your a LEO capable of getting
guns on letterhead at a discount. Basically there is an excise tax in the
US on all guns and ammo of a given % and everyone has to pay for it
except law enforcement is considered exempt. The manufacturer
collects this tax at the time of sale to (their FFL or whoever) and passes
it on to the feds.
I think the only other way to dodge FET is to build your own
gun, but am unsure if the person making the lower/frame has to pay
FET on the frame itself...
-Mike
Yes... 10% on pistols and revolvers, 11% on rifles, shotguns and ammo...
http://www.ttb.gov/fet/faetinfo.pdf
So is this a one time fee at time of purchase or is this a yearly bill that I should be expecting to recieve?
OK, thanks
I believe that's one of the reasons certain firearms and ammo are marked "Law Enforcement Only" (the exception being when having nothing to do with the legality of certain hi-cap magazines and current EBRs in a pre-ban configuration).
It's not that the firearms and ammo are for possession by LEOs only, or that it's unlawful for a civilian to posses, it's that no excise tax has been paid on the items.
Of course the other reason being is that it's a sales pitch meant to impress customers.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
I believe this is the so-called Pittman-Robertson tax that is earmarked for and applied directly to wildlife restoration projects. It was originally applied (in 1937) only to long guns and ammunition and then was expanded to include handguns at a slightly lower percentage. I'm not a big fan of taxes generally, but this is one that I don't mind too much paying.
TY43215
NES Member
A Municipality purchasing the firearm is exempt. A Police Officer purchasing the same firearm is not exempt. The exemption takes place only with use of Department Purchase Order not Department letter allowing the Officer to buy.
Clear as mud????
Clear as mud????
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,567
- Likes
- 33,635
It's paid on the price at which the gun enters the distribution channels, unless the gun is sold directly by a custom manufacturer at retail in which case a lower "constructive price" of (I think) 75% of the selling price is used.
Transactions must be arms length - there have been cases of related firms selling guns between themselves getting into trouble with the feds since the first sale was considered artificially low and not arms length enough to establish an actual market value.
Then there is the relatively new exemption for small manufactures (something like 50 or fewer guns per year).
I believe that's one of the reasons certain firearms and ammo are marked "Law Enforcement Only" (the exception being when having nothing to do with the legality of certain hi-cap magazines and current EBRs in a pre-ban configuration).
It's not that the firearms and ammo are for possession by LEOs only, or that it's unlawful for a civilian to posses, it's that no excise tax has been paid on the items.
Of course the other reason being is that it's a sales pitch meant to impress customers.
This is INCORRECT. It is strictly a marketing ploy. They rightly figure that everyone will be wanting to buy ammo/items that are marked "LEO Only"! NO restrictions on ammo in MA (only NJ wrt hollow-points).
RGS answered the LEOs on letterhead issue (thank you). My first authorized LE gun was ordered personally by my chief to his LE supplier on letterhead. I paid MA Sales Tax and the gun was NOT FET-free at all! I won't tell you that some dealers play the game differently, but if they (dealer) get caught it is Fed charges of TAX EVASION! Not a fun game to play with IRS!
Are you certain?
I have little doubt that the marketing ploy is one reason, but I recall one incident where the FET and marked ammo came into play.
Ammoman (back when he shipped here), was offering Hornady TAP ammo (Marked for "LEO USE ONLY"), to civilians. Hornady sent him a "cease and desist" letter sating that they would cut him off. The reason (at least according to Eric), was that the ammo was FET exempt.
FWIW, Hornady was selling identical ammo, under a different brand name that was not "LEO USE ONLY" marked.
WRT to your experience, I have no doubt that this is something very few know about or play the game differently with... it's a code/law that goes back to 1919
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
.
I agree with both you and LenS.... in some cases it is what you describe,
but most of the time it is purely a marketing ploy. EG there are Colt and
LMT AR's dribbling out onto the market and they are plastered with LEO
markings, but I'd almost guarantee that FET is paid on most of those
guns, bar none.
Another interesting thing indirectly related to FET... is all these LEO programs
the manufs run... which basically offer an even more agressive discount than
dodging FET would anyways. I've seen some "officer pricing on Beretta PX4s
and Glocks that would make non-leos go "WTF? how come they
get it that cheap?!?" It's all in the name of marketing to try to drum up
civilian sales. Most of Glock's profit is made of of the american non-leo
shooter, not the PD's they outfit. Rumor has it many PDs were outfitted
by Glock at minimal real profit- ostensibly with the goal that the increased
marketing exposure would drive "commercial" sales.
-Mike
Len, the thing is... sometimes it's not the dealer playing the game
with FET. Other thing is it's difficult for the feds to say that a given
gun wasnt for official use when the FFL has a copy of the letter stating
so. There's nothing in the "law" that says that a PO is an absolute
requirement. That's more than likely a manufacturer's
individual requirement. (so they can cover their ass... IMO the liability
is all on the manufacturer, as they are the ones who are supposed to be
collecting the tax).
-Mike
J
Jose
That is exactly what it is, and it is one of the few instances in the history of the United States where the revenue from a tax goes 100% to help those who pay (shooters and hunters) the tax.
The Pittman-Robertson Act has been a HUGE success story in wildlife conservation. Many anti-hunters despise it because it proves convincingly and unarguably that hunters are the true conservationists and hunters are who pay the freight for the overwhelming majority of wildlife conservation and restoration projects.
So called urban and suburban "environmentalists" are mere drops of pee in an ocean when it comes to saving and conserving wildlife.
J
Jose
Correct. 11% of the dealer net cost.
Course the problem is, Jose... is that the general public often doesn't know
very much about things like this. They get the impression from dumb
mass media sources that some libtard orgs run the show... when in reality
you have huge conservation orgs like ducks unlimited, etc.... hell, one of
them is even running some kind of wetlands ad on WRKO here
locally. (I forget what the name of it is, offhand, I think they're related
to DU somehow )
-Mike
Are you certain?
I have little doubt that the marketing ploy is one reason, but I recall one incident where the FET and marked ammo came into play.
Ammoman (back when he shipped here), was offering Hornady TAP ammo (Marked for "LEO USE ONLY"), to civilians. Hornady sent him a "cease and desist" letter sating that they would cut him off. The reason (at least according to Eric), was that the ammo was FET exempt.
FWIW, Hornady was selling identical ammo, under a different brand name that was not "LEO USE ONLY" marked.
WRT to your experience, I have no doubt that this is something very few know about or play the game differently with... it's a code/law that goes back to 1919
I'm positive about what I stated!
Gov't run Law Enforcement AGENCIES (just like all gov't bodies) are "tax exempt". They don't pay real estate, sales, FET taxes, etc.
So the Mfr (in the case of guns/ammo) has to create two inventory systems: one for sales to individuals (tax paid on all items) and one for LE AGENCIES (no tax paid on these items).
If any goods shipped from the "non-tax" pile get shipped to a dealer who sells to an individual (even if a PO), that is tax evasion and prosecutable!
Products marked "LEO ONLY" don't get "non-tax" status . . . it's where they get shipped to that gets it or not.
So, if Ammoman pulled a fast one and bought non-taxed ammo for LE AGENCY sales and then diverted it to civilian sales, they put the mfr in a legal bind. This sounds like a combo of tax-evasion (IRS issue on both mfr and dealer) and contract violation (if they bought non-tax ammo and diverted it).
On guns, if a 4473 gets filled out, the FET (legally) MUST have been paid by the mfr on that gun. Anything else and someone can get their nuts crushed by the IRS!
PDs are NOT supposed to order for the department and then divert to an individual officer (cash passing hands), although it's perfectly fine to gift a gun to a retiring officer or sell an obsolete gun to an officer (when they trade up). BTW: When the used guns are traded to places like Summit, nobody pays the FET and they are free to sell back into the civilian market. FET is ONLY charged at manufacture, based on who it is shipped to and not made up later if the used LE guns get into the civilian channels.
Last edited:
Sorry for the late reply. Yes that is right. If you are buying a very expensive target rifle with say a Krieger barrel, why pay the tax on the barrel and the target sights and free floating handguard.....
Best to get a stripped lower and just pay the tax on the receiver.
B
As a tax, the P-R Act is certainly intelligent and efficient. That said, I would bet the membership of the USPSA buys more ammo in a month than the membership of the North American Hunting Club AND DU spends in a year.
Non-hunting shooters almost certainly out-number AND out-spend the hunters in this country.
Similar threads
