{
  "id": "RL33305",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33305",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 313229,
      "date": "2006-03-09",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:09:12.317029",
      "title": "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy",
      "summary": "In April 1980, the federal government enacted the crude oil windfall profit tax on the U.S. oil\nindustry. The main purpose of the tax was to recoup for the federal government much of the revenue\nthat would have otherwise gone to the oil industry as a result of the decontrol of oil prices. \nSupporters of the tax viewed this revenue as an unearned and unanticipated windfall caused by high\noil prices, which were determined by the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)\ncartel.\n \n Despite its name, the windfall profit tax (WPT) was actually an excise tax, not a profits tax,\nimposed on the difference between the market price of oil and an adjusted base price. While most\ndomestically produced oil was subject to the tax (about 2/3 in 1985), the remaining 1/3 that was\ntax-exempt was significant (1.3 billion barrels in 1985, or 360,000 barrels per day). The $80 billion\nin gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393\nbillion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT\nrevenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected. This report\npresents estimates of the amount of foregone oil production from 1980-1986 due to the WPT under\nthree alternative supply price responses, reflecting three different assumptions about the price\nelasticity of the domestic oil supply function, a critical factor (statistic) in estimating lost oil output\nand increased import dependence. From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil\nproduction anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported\noil grew from between 3% and 13%. The tax was repealed in 1988 because (1) it was an\nadministrative burden to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), (2) it was a compliance burden to the\noil industry, (3) due to low oil prices, the tax was generating little or no revenues in 1987 and 1988,\nand (4) it made the United States more dependent on foreign oil. The depressed state of the U.S. oil\nindustry after 1986 also contributed to the repeal decision.\n \n Reinstating the windfall profit tax would reduce recent oil industry windfalls due to high crude\nand petroleum prices but could have several adverse economic effects. If imposed as an excise tax,\nthe WPT would increase marginal production costs and be expected to reduce domestic oil\nproduction and increase the level of oil imports, which today is at nearly 60% of demand. Crude\nprices would not tend to increase. Some have proposed an excise tax on both domestically produced\nand imported oil as a way of mitigating the negative effects on petroleum import dependence. Such\na broad-based WPT would tend to reduce import dependence, but it would lead to higher crude oil\nprices and likely to oil industry profits, potentially undermining its original goals. Because the pure\ncorporate profits tax is relatively neutral in the short run -- few, if any, price and output effects occur\nbecause marginal production costs are unchanged in the short run -- a possible option would be a\ncorporate income surtax on the upstream operations of crude oil producers. Such a tax that would\nrecoup any recent windfalls with less adverse economic effects; imports would not increase because\ndomestic production would remain unchanged. In the long run, such a tax is a tax on capital; it\nreduces the rate of return, thus reducing the supply of capital to the oil industry.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33305",
          "sha1": "872153ca746e82265dbc66fc1b8aaad6fab9c879",
          "filename": "files/20060309_RL33305_872153ca746e82265dbc66fc1b8aaad6fab9c879.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33305",
          "sha1": "b12af190864aa3b130ad6c6bd630ed17b4c8dd21",
          "filename": "files/20060309_RL33305_b12af190864aa3b130ad6c6bd630ed17b4c8dd21.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}