Oklahoma Senate Bill SB298

Oklahoma 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/21
• Refer: 2/2/21
• Report Pass: 2/9/21
• Engrossed: 3/4/21
• Refer: 3/22/21
• Report Pass: 4/15/21
• Enrolled: 4/29/21
• Passed: 5/5/21

Caption

Motor Fuel Tax Code; suppliers and bonded importers; extending date of prior remittance percentage basis increase. Effective date.

Impact

The implementation of SB298 is expected to have significant implications for tax collection in Oklahoma, particularly affecting the cash flow and operational logistics of suppliers and bonded importers. By altering the remittance percentages, the bill aims to create a more manageable tax collection system while also assisting eligible purchasers in managing their cash flow. This could potentially enhance efficiency in the industry, as it gives purchasers additional time to process payments without immediate financial burdens. However, the reliance on electronic funds transfer for payments could necessitate additional administrative adjustments for involved stakeholders.

Summary

Senate Bill 298 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Code in Oklahoma by extending the date of the prior remittance percentage basis increase for motor fuel taxes. The bill specifically pertains to suppliers and bonded importers, stipulating that they shall precollect and remit motor fuel taxes on behalf of purchasers. The proposal allows eligible purchasers to defer payment of this tax until two business days before it is required to be submitted to the state. The percentages of tax to be remitted by eligible purchasers are set at 98.4% for gasoline and 98.1% for diesel until July 1, 2024, after which they will revert to 100%.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB298 appears to be largely positive from those directly involved in the motor fuel industry. Supporters argue that the measures will provide much-needed flexibility and help stabilize operations during an ongoing recovery from fluctuating economic conditions. However, there could be concerns raised about the reliability of ensuring timely payments and the implications of a lower initial tax remittance percentage for state revenues. Generally, the discussions seem to reflect a balance between supporting business operations and maintaining state tax income.

Contention

While the details around SB298 suggest a supportive approach towards motor fuel suppliers and importers, there may be underlying concerns regarding how these changes affect state revenue in the long term. The bill's provision allowing deferred payment might be contested by those who argue that it could lead to potential delays in actual tax remittance, impacting budgeting and funding for public services. Moreover, the conditions surrounding purchaser eligibility and the stipulation of electronic payment methods might raise questions about their accessibility and the effectiveness of enforcement.