Tag Archives: tax

If You Thought ITAR Was Bad…Firearm and Ammunition Manufacturing, Importing (and Gunsmithing) Taxes

Recently, attorney Adam Kraut with Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., blogged about the guidance recently issued by the Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC) relating to its interpretation of what constitutes manufacturing under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulations, the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Although I have blogged about ITAR’s applicability to the Firearms Industry for a long time, including my 2012 article that DDTC was stepping up enforcement of ITAR against the Firearms Industry and thereafter, ATF’s notice to firearm and ammunition manufacturers that they are likely required to register, the Firearms Industry has generally responded in absolute shock to DDTC’s recent guidance that AECA/ITAR regulates the Firearms Industry, even though it has since its implementation in 1976. While some of DDTC’s guidance does go beyond AECA/ITAR, such as requiring gunsmiths to register if they’re merely threading barrels, that is a battle that will need to be fought in court, if the Firearm Industry wants to challenge DDTC.

Nevertheless, there is another, potentially more encompassing law, the Firearm and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET), which was first imposed by the Revenue Act of 1918. You can find it at 26 U.S.C. §§ 4181-4219 and the regulations at 27 C.F.R. Part 53. It is currently enforced by a separate agency, the Alcohol and Tax Trade Bureau, although referred to as TTB.

So, if you thought it was difficult enough remembering the definition of a “firearm” or what constitutes “manufacturing” under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and now AECA/ITAR, get ready, because FAET’s definition of a firearm and manufacturing is separate and distinct. While a book could be written on the intricacies of FAET, the exemptions, and the exceptions (yes, exemptions are different from the exceptions), this article is merely intended to give the Firearms Industry a heads up that they need to ensure their compliance not just with the GCA or AECA/ITAR, but also the FAET.

The FAET provides that a tax of 10% is due on the sale price for pistols/revolvers and 11% on all other firearms and shells and cartridges. Anyone manufacturing or importing any taxable product must file quarterly with the TTB on its 5300.26 Form (except, you do NOT need to submit a return for periods where no tax is due). BUT, what is a firearm? What are shells and cartridges? And what constitutes manufacturing or importing? And there are exceptions/exemptions, right?


As I mentioned about FAET’s definition is NOT identical to the definition found in the GCA. FAET defines a firearms as:

Any portable weapons, such as rifles, carbines, machine guns, shotguns, or fowling pieces, from which a shot, bullet, or other projectile may be discharged by an explosive.

So, if the firearm is not “portable,” it is not taxable; however, pursuant to ATF Ruling 97-2, portable means the weapon can be lifted and carrier by an average person. In that ruling, ATF found that a Model 1919 was portable.

Further, for a firearm to be taxable, it must be complete. Thus, frames and receivers are not taxable; however, selling a firearm in breakdown condition (e.g. all parts present but not assembled) does not exclude it from being a taxable firearm. (Also, don’t think that you can just sell, for example, an AR-15 without a bolt and then, three weeks later, send the customer the bolt, to avoid the tax – REMEMBER, there is a difference between tax avoidance (which is lawful) and tax evasion (which is unlawful)).

Unlike under the GCA, antique firearms ARE firearms and ARE taxable under the FAET and include matchlock, flintlock and perscussion cap firearms. Moreover, unlike the GCA, silencers/suppressors are NOT included under the FAET.

Oh and for the real kicker? Pursuant to ATF Ruling 94-6, a manufacturers own use of a firearm it manufactured for purposes of a demonstration results in a taxable occurrence. Moreover, if a manufacturer lends a firearm to a evaluator for review, such constitutes a taxable occurrence.


Shells and cartridges is defined in the regulations as:

Any article consisting of a projectile, explosive, and contained that is designed, assembled, and ready for use in firearms, pistols or revolvers.

Like with firearms, all components of the ammunition must be present. Hence, blank ammunition with no projectile is exempt. HOWEVER, the sale of un-assembled ammunition kits (e.g. all components present), less than lethal ammunition, marker ammunition with plastic projectiles…etc are all taxable.

Like with firearms, if a manufacturer uses its own ammunition for a demonstration or its own business purposes, it must pay the applicable tax.

Who’s a Manufacturer?

Of course, we also have to define what constitutes a manufacturer, since I already told you that it was not consistent with the GCA or AECA/ITAR. Under the FAET, a manufacturer is defined as:

Any person who produces a taxable article from scrap, salvage, or junk material, or from new or raw materials by processing, manipulating, or changing the form of an article or by combining or assembling 2 or more articles.

Hence, it is not just the manufacture of a new firearm from raw materials that results in the manufacture of a firearm; but rather, it also includes the change in the form of the firearm (or ammunition). Under Revenue Ruling 69-325, it was held that the converting of military rifles into “sport-type” rifles by removing the wooden stock, cutting off the end of the barrel and installing a new front site constituted a change in form of the firearm and resulted in the manufacture of a firearm, for purposes of the FAET.

In this vein, TTB on its publication Gunsmith Information declares that merely “[c]utting off part of the barrel of a firearm is, of itself, an act of manufacture.” (see page 2 of the publication).

However, there can be a distinction between a fabricator and a manufacturer (resulting in a drastic tax liability difference), depending on who owns the materials at the time the firearm or ammunition is to be manufactured. In some occasions, the customer, if he/she provides all the materials, can actually constitute the manufacturer of the firearm/ammunition under the FAET.

Who’s an Importer?

Of course, this article wouldn’t be complete without defining an importer, since they too come under the FAET. An importer is defined as:

Any person who brings a taxable article into the U.S. from a source outside the U.S.

Generally, the FAET focuses on who arranges for the article to be imported as a principal, not the agent.

Exemptions and Exceptions?

All the exemptions and exceptions under FAET are too numerous for this article but some of the more important and applicable ones are:

  1. Purchase by specifically enumerated military departments using appropriated funds (be cautious, not all military departments are enumerated);
  2. Sales to state or local governments (including Indian Tribal Governments and the United Nations);
  3. Sales to non-profit educational organizations (see 26 U.S.C. § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) for a definition)
  4. Firearms subject to the National Firearms Act, where the tax is paid (be cautious SOTs, as your SOT fee is not the payment of the tax for a particular firearm. Accordingly, in some occasions, it may make more sense to pay the manufacturing tax ($200.00) on the manufacture of an NFA firearm rather than pay the 11% tax);
  5. Manufacturers of less than an aggregate of 50 pistols. revolvers, or firearms during a calendar year (this does NOT apply to manufacture of shells or cartridges); and
  6. Personal use is exempted, per 27 C.F.R. 53.112(b).

The Good Aspect to FAET?

The only good thing about FAET is that all tax revenue goes into a trust fund, which can only be used for wildlife restoration and hunter safety training.


If you’re still confused about the FAET’s application to your situation or need to submit a request for determination to the TTB, we are here to help. Give us a call at 888-313-0416 or send us an email at Info@PrinceLaw.com.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

Taxation on Legal Services in PA Likely Unless You Act Now!


Next Monday or Tuesday there will likely be a vote on Senate Bill 76 which will potentially affect the cost to obtain legal services within the state. The proposed legislation would implement a 7% tax on legal services within the state. This tax would be detrimental to those who have a difficult time affording legal services and would effectively bar groups of individuals from being able to obtain access to the judicial system by increasing the cost to do so.

What can you do to help stop this? Contact your State Senator, Representative and the Governor and demand that no tax on legal services be passed and signed into law. Unsure of your State Senator’s and Representative’s contact information? You can find that information here.

Some essential services that lawyers provide to those who are often of limited means include: obtaining worker’s compensation or Social Security benefits that have been wrongly denied, avoiding home foreclosures, gaining court-ordered protection from an abusive spouse or parent, obtaining fair and equal access to fundamental rights, dealing with a hostile landlord or tenant, fighting a property assessment action from a local government and having a simple will written or probating the will of a loved one.

Other points to make to your State Senator and Representative are that if this tax were instituted PA would be the only state in the nation that has a tax on legal services. Further, in 1987 Florida enacted a similar tax on legal services. It proved so unpopular that it was repealed after 9 months.

Prince Law Offices, P.C. is proud to bring you zealous representation at an affordable price. We hope you’ll join us in saying no to Senate Bill 76.


Did you find this blog post helpful or informative? If so, share it with your friends by clicking the buttons below. Don’t forget to “Like” us on Facebook by using the buttons to the side!


Filed under News & Events

NEWSFLASH: Feds Actually Put Gun Tax Revenue to Good Use

Recently, there have been several politicians who have attempted to introduce bills aimed at curbing our 2nd Amendment rights. Many of these bills are either absurd, frivolous, unconstitutional, or seek to impose draconian punishments for even trying to otherwise lawfully possess firearms and ammunition.

One of the current tactics for anti-gun politicians at both the state and federal levels is to attempt to impose prohibitively high taxes on firearms and ammunition for the sole purpose of preventing the people from owning such items.

Of course, the government has long since perfected its habit of taxing us out of our rights, but we can more effectively oppose such new measures with even a little knowledge. For example, how many of our blog followers are aware that we already pay a federal tax of 10% on all new handgun purchases? How many know that we pay a federal tax of 11% on all other new guns and ammunition? Not many, I bet.

These are hidden, embedded excise taxes that not even the politicians whining about taxing our guns and ammo know exist.

The good news is that all the revenue collected from these taxes goes into the U.S. Wildlife Restoration Account. This account is managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which grants its funds to the states to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. The Service’s projects also include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education & development programs, and funds for the management of shooting ranges.

The statutory authority for such a program can be found in the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937.

The least the federal government can do when it taxes our guns and ammo is to put that money to good use, right? Here we are sustaining our own hobbies and ways of life with every purchase. Surprised? I was.

Spread the word that your new guns and ammo are already taxed enough, and that you help hunters and shooters every time you make such purchases. If one of your “representatives” tries to impose higher taxes on your firearms and ammunition purchases, oppose them and tell them that you already pay too much tax on those goods. However, at least you can be satisfied that you are providing a “sustainable economy” for hunting and shooting. Not many participants of other activities are shown the same modicum of respect when their favorite goods and activities are taxed!

Leave a comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Can the Non-Custodial Parent Ever Claim the Children on Federal Taxes After a Separation or Divorce?

By Matthew T. Hovey, Esquire

It’s tax season again and the April 15th deadline is quickly approaching!  As a result, as a family law attorney, a lot of tax related questions are coming in from my clients.  A common question is: can the non-custodial parent ever claim the children on federal taxes after a separation or divorce?

The answer is yes, with the cooperation of the custodial parent (the parent with 51% or more custody).  If you and the other parent are separated or divorced, then, as long as either of you had primary custody of the child or children for the taxable year and either of you provided a majority of the support for the child or children for the taxable year, the custodial parent can transfer the claim to you, the non-custodial parent.  In order to effectuate the transfer, the custodial parent must execute IRS Form 8332 and you, the non-custodial parent, must attach the signed/executed form to your tax return.

A natural follow-up question is: why would the custodial parent agree to transfer the tax claim?  Often the transfer is part a negotiated property or custody settlement.  If the non-custodial parent is also the primary financial provider, the credit can be very valuable to them.  Additionally, those benefits can be long lasting because the children can be claimed for years and years.  As a result, it becomes a valuable bargaining chip and the custodial parent may find it beneficial to transfer the tax credit to the non-custodial parent in exchange for a larger immediate payment in a property settlement.

Lastly, what tax benefits are gained by claiming the children?  To answer this question, I’d point you an excellent article posted online by Bill Bischoff of the Wall Street Journal: Child-Related Tax Breaks After Divorce.  The article provides a breakdown of the available tax benefits.

If you are currently involved in negotiations for a property or custody settlement, please contact our office at 888-313-0416 to schedule a free initial consultation!

Leave a comment

Filed under Family Law