Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


New Supreme Court website (DJS)

A digital-age bird man for Alcatraz?  Tweeting oneself to jail. (DJS)

NYT: How privacy vanishes online (DJS)

Orin Kerr critiques the 11th Circuit on email and the Fourth Amendment (DJS)

Identification by your germs (DJS)

Interview of Professor William Stuntz (DJS)

Professor Eric Goldman on the proposed federal Anti-SLAPP Bill (DJS)

Important advice for new profs: DO NOT make jokes (online or otherwise) about killing your students. (kw)

FTC Report: ID theft is down but overall fraud is up (DJS)

Balkin on reconciliation vs. filibuster (DJS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Geoff Garver on A Civil Procedure Curriculum Challenge

    • David Adams on Deem and Pass

    • edi juandi on Network News Gives Up

    • Gerard Magliocca on Deem and Pass

    • PublishingProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Robert Scott Lawrence on Thoughts about choosing law school, part 4

    • anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Test Executive Pay by Contract Law, not Delaware Corporate Law

    • relatively new on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Mark S. Devenow on My Bad!: The Supreme Court’s Assault on Judicial Elections

    • AF on Deem and Pass

    • another anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • PublishingProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • NotAProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

  •  

    Site Meter

The Metro Crash and Tax: WMATA Clarifies

posted by Sarah Lawsky

In a just-posted article, the Wall Street Journal sheds some light on WMATA’s claim that the 1000-series cars could not be replaced because “tax advantage leases…require that WMATA keep the 1000 Series cars in service at least until the end of 2014″:

Carol Kissal, chief financial officer at Metro, said in an interview that the decision not to replace the cars until 2015, and ignore the NTSB recommendation, was primarily based on the expectation that the cars would be used until the end of their 40-year life, and not because of restrictions from the leasing deals.

She said the leasing agreements didn’t explicitly prohibit Metro from retiring older cars. But most other cars that Metro could have used to replace the 1000-series cars were themselves under leasing arrangements that couldn’t be terminated, Ms. Kissal said.

“We could have replaced the asset, under most of the tax contracts,” Ms. Kissal said. “But we did not have any free, clear, unencumbered assets to replace it with.”

She said Metro had no ability to terminate the leasing deals, unless the assets themselves were damaged.

So it appears that most of the leases did not themselves require that the cars remain in service.  Rather, the leases did permit the 1000-series cars to be retired, so long as they were replaced in the lease by other assets.  But the existence of the leases did in some sense require keeping the cars in service, because WMATA had entered into so many leasing agreements that it had no other assets to substitute for the old cars.

Additionally, Andrea Monroe points out Section 21 of the lease agreement in the KBC leaseback documents, entitled “Voluntary Termination.”  This section permits WMATA to terminate the lease with respect to any equipment that has become obsolete, subject to some limits (for example, it could not exercise this right until five years had passed from the date of the agreement).  WMATA would be required to attempt to sell the obsolete asset, and would also be required to pay a fraction of the termination fee (each asset is assigned a value).

(This is the fifth post in a series. One, two, three, four, five.)


 June 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm   Posted in: Tax   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (2)

  1. Lawsky on The Metro Crash and Tax « A Taxing Blog - June 25, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    [...] via Concurring Opinions » The Metro Crash and Tax: WMATA Clarifies. [...]

  2. Jake - June 25, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    Two points.

    First, I’ve not seen anything in the media about the similar train wreck, also on the Red Line, that Metro experienced about 3-4 years ago. As in the present situation, one train crashed into another from behind, with the lead car on the back train (the laws of physics being what they are) climbing over the rear car on the front train. This occurred toward the other end of the Red Line, somewhere around the Grosvenor station.

    Am I the only person in DC who recalls this event? Has WMATA forced local media publishers to install Orwellian memory holes into which inconvenient history gets fed?

    Second, WMATA is notorious for its lack of candor about financial matters. WMATA’s entry into unlawful SILO tax shelters to monetize its physical plant and equipment at the expense of customer service, and now safety, is not the only instance of secretive and lawless behavior on WMATA’s part where money is concerned.

    Let me explain. Seven or eight years ago the Federal government, DC’s largest employer, decided to grant all Federal agency employees the tax-free commuter transit subsidy, commonly known as SmartBenefits. Federal agency employees could get up to around $100 per month tax-free in this manner, collectible by using a Metro SmartTrip card to purchase Metrorail fares and pay for parking at Metrorail stations. Supposedly this policy would help overworked and underpaid Federal employees, while encouraging more mass transit use in the DC area, with the evident aim of placating environmentalists.

    The problem is that Federal agency employees never saw a nickel of the alleged tax-free commuter transit subsidy, because WMATA soaked up all that money, and then some, like a bizarre taxpayer-fed black hole. Put simply, WMATA’s immediate reaction was to approximately double all Metrorail fares, and triple the parking fees at all Metrorail stations.

    The result was — and remains — a staggering taxpayer subsidy to WMATA under the guise of a commuter transit benefit program to Federal agency employees. When this tectonic shift occurred, many letters were written to the WMATA board seeking an explanation of why WMATA sought to steal commuter transit benefits that rightfully belonged to the Federal agency employees to whom such benefits were given. The WMATA board responded to these legitimate inquiries with silence.

    Now let’s turn to the magnitude of this theft. In rough but very conservative terms, the Metrorail fare and parking fee hikes amounted to an additional $5 per day for commuters who rely on Metrorail to get to work in DC five days a week.

    According to the December 20, 2001 core capacity study available on WMATA’s website, average DAILY Metrorail ridership was expected to reach 775,000 by 2010. Anyone who regularly rides Metrorail knows we are already there and then some.

    Again, playing it conservative, multiply 700,000 commuters per day by a $5 daily hike in Metrorail fares and parking fees. You get $3.5 million per day of incremental windfall revenue to WMATA as a result of its voracious appetite for commuter transit subsidies to Federal agency employees. It would make no sense for WMATA to allow a penny of these employee benefits to actually fall into any employee pockets, correct?

    Take $3.5 million of incremental, stolen, taxpayer-subsidized revenue per weekday to WMATA, multiply that by 250 working days each year (excluding Federal holidays), and you get $875 million of “newfound” money to WMATA each year. Where have these stolen taxpayer dollars gone? WMATA does not say.

    One can surmise the answer, at least in part, however. The value of WMATA’s trains, track, stations, and parking lots to a counterparty in an unlawful SILO tax shelter is measured by the capitalized revenue stream those assets will generate over their economic life spans.

    Accordingly, the scheme works something like this.

    Federal government –> “tax-free” commuter transit subsidies to Federal workers –> $875 million stolen by WMATA annually –> equivalent value over a term of many years transferred, allegedly on tax-favored terms, to the SILO tax shelter investors with whom WMATA does business.

    For this our ancestors fought the American Revolution?

    Bah.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Lisa Fairfax
Michelle Harner
Sherrilyn Ifill
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Tuan Samahon
Alfred Yen










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Adam Benforado
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress