Concrete Pump Tax Fairness Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
The bill shifts the tax burden for concrete boom pump vehicles from fuel consumption to mileage, aiming for a more direct user-fee approach to fund infrastructure maintenance.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to replace the existing fuel tax for mobile mounted concrete boom pump vehicles with a new mileage-based user fee. It establishes different per-mile rates based on vehicle weight, outlines the collection mechanism, and provides a credit against other related taxes to prevent double taxation. The revenue generated from this fee will be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill creates a fairer and more direct user fee system for heavy vehicles that contribute significantly to road wear, ensuring that those who use the infrastructure more pay more. They contend it addresses the specific operational nature of concrete boom pumps, which often operate on job sites where fuel consumption doesn't directly correlate with road usage, and could provide a more stable funding source for the Highway Trust Fund.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill introduces new administrative burdens for vehicle owners and federal agencies due to the requirement for mileage tracking and reporting. Concerns could also be raised about the privacy implications of collecting mileage data and the potential for increased compliance costs for businesses in the concrete pumping industry.
The bill is concise and its core mechanism is clearly articulated, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2, amending Chapter 36, Subchapter E, Section 4491
Imposition of Mileage-Based User Fee
This provision establishes a new fee for mobile mounted concrete boom pump vehicles based on the miles they travel in the United States. The fee is set at $0.05 per mile for vehicles weighing up to 60,000 pounds and $0.07 per mile for those exceeding 60,000 pounds. The owner of the vehicle is responsible for paying this fee, which is collected quarterly.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this fee directly links infrastructure use to funding, ensuring heavy vehicles that cause more wear and tear contribute proportionally. It is seen as a more equitable and sustainable funding model than fuel taxes for specialized vehicles whose fuel consumption may not accurately reflect their road usage.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this introduces a new layer of taxation and administrative complexity for a specific industry, potentially increasing operational costs for construction businesses and requiring new compliance infrastructure.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for a direct user-fee model for infrastructure funding against potential increased compliance costs and administrative burden for a specific industry.
Section 2, amending Chapter 36, Subchapter E, Section 4491(d)
Credit for Existing Fuel and Heavy Vehicle Taxes
This provision allows vehicle owners to elect a credit against the new mileage-based fee for any existing taxes paid on the vehicle under sections 4053 (heavy truck and trailer retail tax), 4081 (fuel tax), and 4481 (heavy vehicle use tax) for the same taxable period. This credit is in lieu of a separate payment or refund under section 6427 for fuel taxes.
Section 2, amending Chapter 36, Subchapter E, Section 4491(e)
Development of Mileage Tracking System
This section mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury, in close coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, develop a system for administering and ensuring compliance with the mileage-based fee. The system must work with existing vehicle technology, minimize administrative burdens for both pump owners/operators and government agencies, integrate with state and local transportation revenue mechanisms, protect privacy, and allow for third-party administration of data collection and refunds.
This amendment specifies that for mobile mounted concrete boom pump vehicles, the existing 'use-based test' for fuel tax refunds (which typically requires fuel to be used off-highway) does not apply. This means these vehicles can claim a credit against the new mileage fee for fuel taxes paid, regardless of whether the fuel was used on or off public highways.
Section 2(b), amending Section 6421(e)(2)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for making technical adjustments to existing tax law to accommodate new provisions and prevent unintended double taxation, rather than an attempt to hide a controversial policy.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that the new mileage-based fee truly replaces the fuel tax for these vehicles, preventing them from being effectively taxed twice on their fuel consumption, especially given their mixed on-highway and off-highway operational nature.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical corrections that prevent double taxation, though some might argue it adds to the overall complexity of the tax code.
Estimated impact: Likely a revenue-neutral or minor revenue impact, as it clarifies how existing taxes are offset by the new fee rather than creating a new exemption or tax burden.
This amendment modifies the definition of 'nontaxable use' for fuel taxes to explicitly exclude uses by mobile mounted concrete boom pump vehicles. This technical change ensures that fuel used by these vehicles, even if it might otherwise qualify as a nontaxable use, will still be subject to fuel tax, which is then offset by the credit against the new mileage fee.
Section 2(c), amending Section 4082(b)
Why it matters:This is a technical adjustment to ensure consistency within the tax code, preventing unintended loopholes or double exemptions that could arise from the new mileage fee. It's standard legislative practice for aligning new provisions with existing law.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures the integrity of the new mileage-based fee system by preventing these vehicles from simultaneously claiming fuel tax exemptions and the mileage fee credit, ensuring a clear and consistent tax structure.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical corrections that ensure consistency and prevent unintended tax benefits in tax law.
Estimated impact: Revenue-neutral, as it is a technical adjustment to how taxes are applied and credited, not a new tax burden or exemption.