Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Congressman Young introduced H.R. 3142 Wild Game Donation Act

  1. #1
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default Congressman Young introduced H.R. 3142 Wild Game Donation Act

    What do you think?

    The Wild Game Donation Act. This bill would make hunters who donate meat to food-based charities eligible for a tax deduction for the processing cost of their wild game. Additionally, this legislation would provide a tax credit for processors who take part in this program. H.R. 3142 requires that all animals are killed in accordance with state and local laws and by the individual making the charitable contribution.


    “Our state has far too many resources for any Alaskan to be hungry,” said Rep. Young. “When the Food Bank of Alaska tells me that 93,000 Alaskans don’t know where their next meal is coming from, there is a real problem. My bill will begin to help solve that problem while also providing an economic incentive for hunters to donate their game. I anticipate broad bipartisan support for this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill.”


    The Food Bank of Alaska estimates that they need to distribute at least 15 million pounds of food per year and are currently only distributing 10 million pounds


    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3142:#
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  2. #2

    Default

    I have given much and given often over the years, and never yet claimed a tax deduction for my contributions. My take is that if this bill helps hungry people who are in need, it's worth a hoot.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    eagle river
    Posts
    142

    Default

    I do not support more tax deductions. The tax code is way tooooo complicated as it is and needs to be simplified. However, I greatly support donating wild game and other food to help out people in need. It should be driven by the kindness and goodness of the heart.

  4. #4

    Default

    Just more touchy/feely beauracratic nonsense. Not needed and it brings a sense of Giving...replacing Sharing...suppose it will help the high and mighty feel better about themselves though. Criminey Sakes, .gov just knows they need to be involved in every facet of our lives.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  5. #5
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Don't like it much.You give because of your heart not money.I see folks looking for tax cuts on their two year old bottom of the freezer meat that they would normally throw out.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Just more touchy/feely beauracratic nonsense. Not needed and it brings a sense of Giving...replacing Sharing...suppose it will help the high and mighty feel better about themselves though. Criminey Sakes, .gov just knows they need to be involved in every facet of our lives.
    I'm all for scaling back on the government's involvement in our lives, BUT... I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It's one thing when the goverment puts some type of mandate on something i.e... You MUST have health insurance, you MUST wear a seatbelt in your own vehicle, whatever... (maybe not great examples but you get my drift) This to me doesn't seem any different then going to your local charity to donate clothing and getting a receipt. If you don't want to participate then don't.

  7. #7
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Is it just me or does this have a flare of market hunting stink to it...

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Don't like it much.You give because of your heart not money.I see folks looking for tax cuts on their two year old bottom of the freezer meat that they would normally throw out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    Just more touchy/feely beauracratic nonsense. Not needed and it brings a sense of Giving...replacing Sharing...suppose it will help the high and mighty feel better about themselves though. Criminey Sakes, .gov just knows they need to be involved in every facet of our lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by jws View Post
    I do not support more tax deductions. The tax code is way tooooo complicated as it is and needs to be simplified. However, I greatly support donating wild game and other food to help out people in need. It should be driven by the kindness and goodness of the heart.
    To add, how many people who donate take the time and expense to have the meat commercialy processed ? I am sure it is very few. If I were to make a donation it is not going to be sausages, it is going to be quarters on the bone that the recipients can process on their own. I am certain places such as Bean's Cafe have many "visitor's" and volunteer's fully capable of butchering the meat into more user friendly portions. I am willing to go so far as to think there is already a provision in the tax code allowing a commercial processor to claim a deduction for services if a charity solicited for some grind work, etc.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    Is it just me or does this have a flare of market hunting stink to it...
    That crossed my mind first and foremost, but I quickly disregarded the thought. I think that the season/annual bag limits would limit the $$ amount to such that it would not be worthwhile, especialy considering the $$ it takes to hunt, at least in this state. I have no trouble believing a certain few would do everything in their power to take advantage of it to the point of abuse... but there would be nothing new about that.

    It may put a dent in the whitetail population for a bit though.

    Or we could take it further and imagine expanding the tax code even more: deducttions for fuel to get to hunt area, firearm or archery equipment, clothing, camp gear, and on.... HEY, wait a minute, I may be on to something !

  10. #10
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    i'm all for donating to people that are in need and i'm sure everyone else here is as well. with that said i'm not sure a tax incentive to harvest more animals is the best way to go about doing it. the limiting factor for most of us to hunt is the amount of meat you can actually use. too often you see guys shoot way more than they should, let the meat freezer burn, and throw it away just to go do the same thing year after year. i think this bill has good meaning but as was said will be abused in some way, shape, or form. Even though it states animals taken by legal means it could increase harvest in more accessible areas especially in areas with liberal regulations. I believe people may shoot more animals than they normally would, increasing harvest and possibly leading to stricter regulations for all. If your going to donate i believe helping folks should be good enough for you. The idea of being able to trophy hunt, not have to deal with the meat, and get a tax break out of it seems like it could lead to trouble.

  11. #11

    Default

    Hey can I get a Tax Credit for Donating my Antler Collection to the Smithsonian? I'll betcha that has already happened too! Gotta make more room on the wall/freezer doncha know. The more I think about this notion, the more it stinks.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    First off, not to offend anyone, but I don't think any hunter, nonres or resident, needs nor deserves a tax break for donating wild game meat.

    Secondly, this is an absolutely bizarre thing to write into an already way overcomplicated tax code.

    There are no monetary figures listed anywhere I can see in the bill or in the announcement of it that show estimated costs per deer/caribou/moose for processing. I'll paste the actual bill text in below, for the life of me I can't really make sense of how this would work. I thought at first the food bank would benefit because they would no longer have to pay processing costs for all the donated meat, but then you have this "exclusion of processor's income from tax-exempt organizations," which alludes the food bank would still be paying processors.

    So is the food bank benefiting at all here? Not sure Congressman Young has really thought this thing through...what about air-cargo companies that donate free shipping from outlying villages to hubs like ANC if it's being donated to the food bank? Won't they be kinda ticked they aren't included? Why should the hunter benefit if he or she is already taking advantage of all these freebies?


    112th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 3142

    • To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the donation of wild game meat.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESOctober 6, 2011
    • Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


    A BILL
    • To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the donation of wild game meat.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. Charitable deduction for costs associated with donations of wild game meat.
    (a) In general.—Subsection (e) of section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    “(8) SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF WILD GAME MEAT.—
    “(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a charitable contribution by an individual of qualified wild game meat, the amount of such contribution otherwise taken into account under this section (after the application of paragraph (1)(A)) shall be increased by the amount of the qualified processing fees paid with respect to such contribution.
    “(B) QUALIFIED WILD GAME MEAT.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘qualified wild game meat’ means the meat of any animal which is typically used for human consumption, but only if—
    “(i) such animal is killed in the wild by the individual making the charitable contribution of such meat (not including animals raised on a farm for the purpose of sport hunting),
    “(ii) such animal is hunted or taken in accordance with all State and local laws and regulations, including season and size restrictions,
    “(iii) such meat is processed for human consumption by a processor which is licensed for such purpose under the appropriate Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and which is in compliance with all such laws and regulations, and
    “(iv) such meat is apparently wholesome (under regulations similar to the regulations under section 22(b)(2) of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act).
    “(C) QUALIFIED PROCESSING FEE.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘qualified processing fee’ means any fee or charge paid to a processor which fulfills the requirements of subparagraph (B)(iii) for the purpose of processing wild game meat, but only to the extent that such meat is donated as a charitable contribution under this section.”.
    (b) Exclusion of processor's income from tax exempt organizations.—
    (1) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 139C the following new section:
    “SEC. 139D. Certain income received from charitable organizations.
    “(a) In general.—Gross income of a qualified meat processor shall not include any amount paid to such processor as a qualified processing fee by a charitable organization for the processing of donated wild game meat.
    “(b) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
    “(1) QUALIFIED MEAT PROCESSOR.—The term ‘qualified meat processor’ means a processor which fulfills the requirements of section 170(e)(8)(B)(iii).
    “(2) CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘charitable organization’ means an entity to which a charitable contribution may be made under section 170(c) and the charitable purpose of which is to provide free food to individuals in need of food assistance.
    “(3) DONATED WILD GAME MEAT.—The term ‘donated wild game meat’ means qualified wild game meat (as defined in section 170(e)(8)(B), without regard to clause (iii) thereof) which is received as a charitable contribution (as defined in section 170(c)) by a charitable organization.
    “(4) QUALIFIED PROCESSING FEE.—The term ‘qualified processing fee’ means any fee or charge paid to a qualified meat processor for the purpose of processing donated wild game meat.”.
    (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139C the following new item:“Sec. 139D. Certain income received from tax exempt organizations.”.


    (c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to donations made, and fees received, after the date of the enactment of this Act.


  13. #13
    Member caribouman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodland, CA
    Posts
    43

    Default Commercial processing required for donations

    I hunt Kodiak for deer annually. I am a non-resident and would be more than happy to donate most if not all the meat I harvest to the needy in the local community rather than ship it home. However, I tried to donate it to several places and was told there is a federal law that prohibits them from accepting donations of meat that isn't professionally processed. So basically if I want to give away the meat that I just paid $150 for each tag, and $85 for the license (not to mention $3000 additional to Alaska's economy for the rest of the trip) I will need to pay another $80 (estimate) per deer to have it processed so I can help someone in need. I can ship it home for that and eat it myself.

    I can give it away to individuals not subject to the law on the street corner or call the Native association, but a little help through a tax credit would allow me to give it to a food bank, church, etc.

    Brian

  14. #14
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default

    There is no federal law that states that you can't donate meat unless it is processed. If there is one then i guess i'm a felon. I think what they were trying to get at is that you can't just drop a deer or caribou or whatever on the steps of a church, food bank, etc and say "hey, here you go, eat up." To donate game meat it usually goes through a processor who will butcher it and process it and then turn it over to a food banks. I'm not so sure I agree with this bill either. What would the dollar amount for it be? Are they going to track each individual to see how many animals they are turning in for the tax break? It doesn't matter how well a bill is written, someone will always find a way to abuse it.
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default feedback first, new bill second

    At first glance it sounds and feels good. At second glance, this plan has more holes than swiss cheese. Sorry Don.

    P.S. (to Don Young, wherever you are, on this forum): Next time, consider posting a new thread containing a wish-for-this/whatever onto this forum for some feedback, before submitting a bill. You might get some feedback that would let you either better-hone your bill, or re-think it via having more info. Of course not all info on this site is worth incorporating back into your ideas, but for sure, a good bit of it really is.

  16. #16
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Absolute garbage, the old man has lost his freakin mind. This bill is shear insanity.

    "When times were scarce, friends were there, when meat is needed, I too share."

    I don't need a tax deduction for processing or donating, and neither does anybody else. I will also NEVER get my meat processed and will always work among family and friends while processing my own meat, just like our old folks did.

  17. #17
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Donation of game meat (or any other foodstuffs) is great and should be encouraged. Most of us donate to charity from the heart. If it takes a couple $ to entice a few more to do so, I have no problem with that. Charitable donations will help far more real people than any mandated gov't program could even dream of. So anything to help out the private, local charities is a great thing.

    That said, we should be looking at a Fair Tax system with the associated gutting of the IRS and general elimination of all these complicated tax codes. And a beautiful first step to that would be to scrap the current system of punishing hard working people who make money and shifting taxes over to a consumption tax. Cut your income tax down to about 9%. Cut the Corporate tax rate down to about 9%, and then impose a nationwide 9% sales tax. An average Joe that is currently paying upwards of 25% of his income to the Federal gov't would have an immediate take-home pay increase as his tax rate drops to 9%. And even if he spent every penny of his income "consuming" stuff, his overall annual tax rate would have dropped to 18%, which is still a big increase in spending power.

    The best possible option is for a complete elimination of private income taxes. The gov't has no reason to know how much money any individual makes. A pure consumption tax is the only fair way to go about it. Plus it nails everybody who uses public services (tourists, illegals, etc.), not just the people who live here and honestly file their 1040's every year.

    Whoa, did I just drift off topic or what? What were we talking about.... oh yeah, meat. I like meat. Share your meat with the people. Hey, does this donation thingie include dipnet salmon?
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  18. #18

    Default

    From an Alaskan perspective, Akres absolutely nailed this one with the "Giving...replacing Sharing..." observation, however this bill would apply to the entire US if passed, so .338WM is right that it would affect outside deer hunters more than Alaskans. Within Alaska, the deduction would mostly affect those guided sport "hunters" from outside who only take trophies home and already donate the meat here anyway. However, this bill is written mostly to benefit meat processors, not hunters.

    I don't know how many actually read the bill's text before bushrat's post, but it's simply a subsidy for meat processors. Any minor benefits to hunters, food banks, or the hungry are largely a smokescreen for this business subsidy. First of all, donations of meat to food banks are already deductible, and business donations to charity are already deductible, so the bill is completely unnecessary. Second, remember that deductions only benefit the small percentage of citizens who file Schedule A, so this won't help most hunters anyway. (About 1/3 of Americans, and 1/4 of Alaskans, itemize deductions. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22499.html )

    What the bill actually says is: (1) hunters who have their meat processed before donating would get an additional deduction for the processing cost, in addition to the existing deduction already allowed for the meat itself, and (2) processors who are paid by a charity to process game meat for them would receive that income tax-free. Yes, you just read that right, there's NO benefit for the charity, instead the money paid by the charity to the processor would be tax-free income to the processor. In other words, a direct business subsidy.

    Personally, I've made plenty of donations to food banks, usually canned food, but never donated meat, because I've only killed what we could use. I've shared plenty of meat, just never given it to charity. (And also never thrown away edible meat or fish merely because it was freezer burned, that's what stewing is for.) There's nothing wrong with hunters donating some of their meat locally instead of flying all of it out, however that's a very different matter than coming up here just to kill trophies and donating all of the meat just to "feel better about themselves" and avoid dealing with it.

  19. #19
    Member AKHunterNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    Hey, does this donation thingie include dipnet salmon?
    Only for Lisa.
    "...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Don Might as well try to pass a Bill for a tax break on road killed animals that get donated too. For the repair of the vehicle. Let the auto body industry get a kickback too!

    I'm with Seraphina on this. It's basically a bill to give trophy hunters a way out of keeping the meat and paying for processing and shipping. Basically a way to legitimize head hunting. If Don's that worried about the locals, ban outsiders from hunting and let the locals take care of hunting and distribution. Not really needed in Alaska with proxy hunting.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •