HR-9258-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsored by Rudy Yakym (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to replace the existing federal fuel excise tax on mobile mounted concrete boom pump vehicles with a per-mile user fee. Owners of these vehicles would pay $0.05 per mile for trucks weighing up to 60,000 pounds and $0.07 per mile for trucks exceeding 60,000 pounds. Revenue collected would be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, and owners who pay fuel taxes could elect to credit those payments against the mileage fee.
Who benefits
Owners and operators of concrete boom pump trucks, who may pay less in total fees if their vehicles travel fewer miles but consume more fuel (e.g., while operating the pump stationary on a job site). Concrete construction companies broadly, including small and mid-size contractors. Indirectly, construction clients and developers who may see lower equipment operating costs passed through. Third-party data administrators who would be authorized to manage mileage data collection and refund payments.
Who is hurt
The federal Highway Trust Fund could see a net revenue change — either gain or loss — depending on whether the mileage fee collects more or less than the fuel tax it replaces for this vehicle class. General taxpayers or other Highway Trust Fund users could be affected if the swap produces a funding shortfall. Competing heavy equipment categories that remain subject to fuel taxes may face a relative cost disadvantage. Federal and state tax administrators would bear implementation costs to build the new mileage-tracking system.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that concrete boom pumps are uniquely penalized by the fuel tax because they burn large amounts of fuel while stationary — operating the pump boom on a job site — rather than while traveling on public roads. They contend that a mileage-based fee more accurately reflects actual road use and wear, aligning the tax structure with the user-pays principle that underlies the Highway Trust Fund. This approach mirrors broader policy interest in vehicle-miles-traveled fees as a fairer alternative to fuel taxes for vehicles whose fuel consumption does not track road use.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that carving out a single, narrow equipment category for preferential tax treatment sets a problematic precedent, as many other heavy vehicles also consume fuel while idling or operating auxiliary equipment. They contend that the administrative cost of building a new mileage-tracking and reporting system for this small vehicle class — requiring coordination between the IRS, Department of Transportation, and third-party administrators — may exceed any fairness benefit, and that the Highway Trust Fund could face a net revenue loss if the per-mile rates are not calibrated to match current fuel tax collections from this vehicle class.