My sister, who is a vegetarian, sent this to me. She likes this bill...a lot.

S. 2794, introduced by Charles E. Schumer, [D-N.Y.], would provide tax incentives for the costs associated with donations of wild game meat.
111th CONGRESS
S. 2794
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the donation of wild game meat.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 18, 2009
Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the donation of wild game meat.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DONATIONS OF WILD GAME MEAT.

(a) In General. -- Subsection (e) of section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

"(8) SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF WILD GAME MEAT --

"(A) IN GENERAL. -- In the case of a charitable contribution by an individual of qualified wild game meat, the amount of such contribution otherwise taken into account under this section (after the application of paragraph (1)(A)) shall be increased by the amount of the qualified processing fees paid with respect to such contribution.

"(B) QUALIFIED WILD GAME MEAT. -- For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'qualified wild game meat' means the meat of any animal which is typically used for human consumption, but only if --

"(i) such animal is killed in the wild by the individual making the charitable contribution of such meat (not including animals raised on a farm for the purpose of sport hunting),

"(ii) such animal is hunted or taken in accordance with all State and local laws and regulations, including season and size restrictions,

"(iii) such meat is processed for human consumption by a processor which is licensed for such purpose under the appropriate Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and which is in compliance with all such laws and regulations, and
"(iv) such meat is apparently wholesome (under regulations similar to the regulations under section 22(b)(2) of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act).
"(C) QUALIFIED PROCESSING FEE. -- For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'qualified processing fee' means any fee or charge paid to a processor which fulfills the requirements of subparagraph (B)(iii) for the purpose of processing wild game meat, but only to the extent that such meat is donated as a charitable contribution under this section.".

(b) Exclusion of Processor's Income From Tax Exempt Organizations --

(1) IN GENERAL. -- Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 139C the following new section:

"SEC. 139D. CERTAIN INCOME RECEIVED FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS.

"(a) In General. -- Gross income of a qualified meat processor shall not include any amount paid to such processor as a qualified processing fee by a charitable organization for the processing of donated wild game meat.
"(b) Definitions. -- For purposes of this section --
"(1) QUALIFIED MEAT PROCESSOR. -- The term 'qualified meat processor' means a processor which fulfills the requirements of section 170(e)(8)(B)(iii).
"(2) CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION. -- The term 'charitable organization' means an entity to which a charitable contribution may be made under section 170(c) and the charitable purpose of which is to provide free food to individuals in need of food assistance.
"(3) DONATED WILD GAME MEAT. -- The term "donated wild game meat' means qualified wild game meat (as defined in section 170(e)(8)(B), without regard to clause (iii) thereof) which is received as a charitable contribution (as defined in section 170(c)) by a charitable organization.
"(4) QUALIFIED PROCESSING FEE. -- The term 'qualified processing fee' means any fee or charge paid to a qualified meat processor for the purpose of processing donated wild game meat.".
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139C the following new item:
"Sec. 139D. Certain income received from tax exempt organizations.".
(c) Effective Date. -- The amendments made by this section shall apply to donations made, and fees received, after the date of the enactment of this Act

I am for any tax cut or incentive but I do not trust Schumer at all.

quote:

Originally posted by JA:
I am for any tax cut or incentive but I do not trust Schumer at all.

I agree with both observations.
First thing I asked myself, "why would a New York democrat want to give a tax credit to hunters?"
I'm sure there are democrats in New York who hunt and are fine people, but this doesn't seem like it would be popular with his base.
Am I missing something here?

I am not for this.Hunting should not be subsisdized through taxes.

Well, Shumer probably didn't see this before his staff passed it along.

I believe hunting is already subsidized by tax dollars, or at leased enhanced, through the Pittman-Robertson Act, so I have no problem with it, especially if it will get more people to hunt and donate. It may encourage those that do not kill an animal and donate it to do so if they feel like they will get some of the fee back.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
I believe hunting is already subsidized by tax dollars, or at leased enhanced, through the Pittman-Robertson Act

Not trying to start any shit here, but I'm not so sure I agree with this statement. Does anyone know what percentage, on average, of the P.R. Act funds go to the individual state's general fund and how much actually goes towards wildlife conservation and management? Just curious if anyone has any REAL data.

I have a biologist friend with MT FWP. Montana is not going to raise their tag prices for 2010 (like they originally planned) because of 2009's increase in sales of firearms and hunting gear.

Seems like something is ending up here in MT (not sure of the amounts though).

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Well, Shumer probably didn't see this before his staff passed it along.

I believe hunting is already subsidized by tax dollars, or at leased enhanced, through the Pittman-Robertson Act, so I have no problem with it, especially if it will get more people to hunt and donate. It may encourage those that do not kill an animal and donate it to do so if they feel like they will get some of the fee back.

Thats self imposed by the Hunting, Shooting Fraternity for the betterment of wildlife.I gave two Does this year to Hunt for the Hungry and do not expect anything in return for it besides self satisfaction that I helped someone out.I think most guys would agree that is enough of a reward . OB

Kenati, I don't have any exact figures, but I do know that Kansas gets a lot of money from the Act. It goes straight to the KDPW. Is that ALL about hunting, no, but a great percentage of it is. I'll take that. I don't think you are stirring anything up. Just a discussion.

OLBIKER, any federal tax, which the P-R Act is, I would not consider self imposed. I agree with you in that personally I get the satisfaction of donating the meat on a personal basis. What I am saying is that if this paltry tax credit will get new people to provide for the hungry, since that is a growing number, I am for it. I think that will potentially bring more hunters as well. I also think that is a good thing since our numbers are drastically declining as well. I just see it as a win, win.

The main point is that I don't think Shumer ever saw this.

I'm with JA. I don't trust Schumer at all -and I live in NY. You folks can bank on it, he means that NY courts run by liberal judges will figure out some way to hurt hunters if this bill passes. ( BTW, we already have private groups in NY who receive contributions from hunters of game meat for use. Our State Police, for as long as I can remember, have always seen to it that deer killed on the highways,went to people who could use the meat. JA is on the right track. I smell a real Schumer rat.

I think that Schumer sees the success that Hunt for the Hungry and other Sportsmens programs have had and would like to find a way to take credit for it himself.Typical polital (I) man.Screw him.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Kenati, I don't have any exact figures, but I do know that Kansas gets a lot of money from the Act. It goes straight to the KDPW. Is that ALL about hunting, no, but a great percentage of it is. I'll take that. I don't think you are stirring anything up. Just a discussion.

OLBIKER, any federal tax, which the P-R Act is, I would not consider self imposed. I agree with you in that personally I get the satisfaction of donating the meat on a personal basis. What I am saying is that if this paltry tax credit will get new people to provide for the hungry, since that is a growing number, I am for it. I think that will potentially bring more hunters as well. I also think that is a good thing since our numbers are drastically declining as well. I just see it as a win, win.

The main point is that I don't think Shumer ever saw this.

In 1937, hunters lobbied Congress to pass the Pittman-Robinson Act, an 11 percent tax on hunting equipment which, combined with license fees, now provides Wildlife restoration projects.(if this is not self imposed than what is????)