Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

EXCISE TAX ON OIL MAY BE PUSHED

EXCISE TAX ON OIL MAY BE PUSHED
Credit...The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
January 29, 1983, Section 1, Page 29Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

The Administration might support proposals to levy a $5-a-barrel oil excise tax in the near future, sources said today. A $5-a-barrel oil excise tax as a ''contingency'' levy for 1985 and beyond has already been proposed by the Administration.

Congressional and other sources suggested today that, by advocating an excise tax sooner than 1985 on both imported and domestic oil, the Administration may be signaling interest in pushing the idea independently of the standby plan.

The standby plan is included in a package of taxes that the Adminstration says will be necessary after 1985 if Federal deficits are not brought down to acceptable levels. The contingency plan is not given much chance of passage this year in Congress.

''Kind of an Invitation''

Proposing an oil excise tax is ''kind of an invitation, it seems to me,'' commented an aide to Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey. ''And if you're looking for a time to do it,'' he added, referring to the disarray over prices within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, ''this is the time.''

Until now, the Administration has been steadfastly opposed to an oil excise tax, a possibility that has been widely discussed both as a way to raise revenues and as a means to preserve the hard-won gains in energy efficiency that followed previous increases in energy prices.

''By raising the subject, they've changed from it being totally verboten to meaning, well, maybe,'' said another Congressional aide who asked that he not be identified.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT