I don't believe this had anything to do with oil companies. The state probably relies on those taxes for transportation costs, and is afraid of what will happen if everyone moves outside of the normal (taxed) supply chain to get their fuel.

The problem is that we need to move from the standard supply chains in order to have a more robust energy portfolio in this country. Not everyone can afford to create a business to provide for their own personal use, and we shouldn't have to wait on companies to fill a void for us. In most cases, providing anything for personal use should be taxed exempt. He should be rewarded anyway for disposing of the waste oil in a safe manner.

This really doesn't strike me as much different from my own state of California which checks ID when recycling more than $50 worth of CRV material. They do this in order to prevent "professional recyclers" making a living without paying income tax. Governments often care more about collecting revenue than...well just about anything else.

Assuming that he is making the biofuel himself for his own use, there is no crime. The crime would be if he sold it to others. If he bought untaxed fuel, the fines go to the seller (unless he did it knowingly).

=== author's response follows ====
Yes, that would be the rational analysis. Could be the enforcement threats were the result of ignorance of actual regulatory requirements by agents, or the result of badly written, conflicting rules, or even a lack of training and field experience. It comes down, though, to employees of the people using a putative rigid uncaring approach on an old man and his wife living on fixed income and posing, by their well intended actions, an insignificant threat to the tax system. Whatever the explanation, the result is bad for people, bad for green innovation, and bad for the earth's future. Lets hope it gets fixed.

Oh please get your terminology right. He runs on RECYCLED VEGETABLE OIL, not biodiesel. Two completely different things, two completely different methods of refining, two completely different systems for the vehicle.

He collects used fryer oil, filters out all the particulate matter, settles out all the water, then pours into an auxiliary tank which heats the oil.

So once you actually understand this guy's predicament, they are telling him he has to be a licensed fuel supplier for FOOD GRADE VEGETABLE OIL. If he were brewing biodiesel, this would still be absurd, but at least it is actually considered a fuel and has no other use.
=== author's response follows ====
Except for interviews and visiting trade shows TreeHugger does no original reporting. If there is a mistake it was made by others. Thanks much, however, for pointing this out.

I'm dumbfounded by the government's reaction to this man's initiative. If he were to use stolen fuel or not pay taxes due, I could see where the government would have an case. However, this man is pouring waste into his gas tank. He obtains [I presume through legal means] used oil and, after the purification process, pours it into his gas tank. Where is the government's stake in this?
Is he fined for -not- consuming diesel fuel? Is it not his business what he does with his vehicle? He does not avoid paying taxes because he owes no taxes. If he did not drive a car he would also not buy fuel. Now he does drive a car, provides for his own fuel needs, doesn't pay taxes on something he can't be taxed on.
Why does the government think it should fine him? And the first he hears about it is not the local sheriff complaining, it's the FBI if you don't mind! What happened to the land of the free?

We do not owe the government spending money on gas. We certainly don't owe big oil anything. This man has nothing to do with either. If he became ill but didn't see a doctor, would they go after him for not providing an income to the local doctor? What is happening to America?

Why should recycled vegetable oil be taxed again when the original product had already been taxed? The absolute injustice here is that American taxpayers get taxed when they 1.) EARN their money, 2.) Spend their money and now 3.) when they do not want to spend their money.
And where do most of taxes go? To funding wars so that America could import more oil.

Why should recycled vegetable oil be taxed again when the original product had already been taxed? The absolute injustice here is that American taxpayers get taxed when they 1.) EARN their money, 2.) Spend their money and now 3.) when they do not want to spend their money.
And where do most of taxes go? To funding wars so that America could import more oil.

Did any of you read the article? The issue isn't that he has to pay the 18 cents a gallon tax (which he's willing to pay), it's that the state revenue officials want him to register as both a gasoline supplier and a gasoline receiver business, with $2500 bond and all sorts of difficult and complicated paperwork and approvals. Apparently the only way IL can collect his 18 cents is if he does that. His counter-argument is that according to IL law he's doesn't have to do that if he handles less than 300000 gallons of gas or ships gas into the state.

This has nothing to do with the actual tax needing to be paid.
=== author's response follows ====
Rob's remarks get to the heart of the matter. On the other hand, the agency did send TWO people to poor guy's home for a personal visit instead of just a form letter like the Federal IRS would use. The Dept of Revenue's cost for the two agents visit - adding direct hourly labor and mileage expenses -- probably exceeds the tax revenue that will be gained for several years. An alternate possible explanation would be that gentleman's habit of going to public forums to speak about biofuels was viewed as a threat to the tax system and this was their way of getting him to back off the speaking circuit.

Sounds like this is more of a hard handed tactic to force him to use Gasoline. Our government is all about Oil and big business.

Why don't hybrids have to pay an electricity tax? They use that to power the car.

Sure let's tax and suppress alternate and cleaner forms of energy so all our government leaders can keep their Oil fortunes.

What next? Will we be arrester or taxed for using our legs to pedal a bike on the street because we didn't pay for gas? Insanity at it's best!!

People are missing the point here.

The issue is that states pay for road repairs by using fuel taxes. If you make your own fuel you are using roads and not paying your fair share to maintain them.

This law is another example of how failure of leadership more than technology is defeating alternative fuels. Because the tax is tied to gas, it hurts any alternative.

A simple solution would be to tax people on 1. the number of miles they drive a year, and 2. the weight of their vehicle, since those are the biggest factors in how much damage they do to roads.

That would be a fair tax, and it would not hurt alternative fuels.

What about bicyclists? They don't use any fuel and I see them using the roads all the time.

I don't expect that this guy will end up paying the bond.

ROFL, leave it up to the government and tax collectors to solve the alternative energy "crisis." What everyone seems to be saying is that he was fined because the fact that he was not using the fossil fuels, which taxes are taken from to pay for our roads and other means of public transit, he is finding himself in trouble. So is that saying that everyone pays for the roads? What about the people that don't drive? How come they aren't being taxed? Just because this man wants to save himself money and using alternative fuels, why should the government have to intervene and condemn this man?

=== editor note ===
Closing phrase was deleted. The commenter's point remains the same as before the edit.

=== author's response follows ====
Just as retired people pay school taxes, and as sewer taxes are levied at a standard rate, even if you have a waterless composting toilet, the future of the commonwealth gets a net gain from less than perfect levy formulae. That's the rationale, anyhow. On the other hand, not only is this example especially unfair, given the trivial amount of tax revenue at stake from all existing veggie oil burners, but it seems also to miss the mark on future social benefit. Making analogy to forgoing internet sales taxes to nurture the growth of E-Commerce, good agency judgment and foresight were lacking in this case.

Last time I checked, a vehicle still uses public roads, no matter what kind of fuel runs it. Those roads don't build and maintain themselves. Of course he should pay tax. Why should other motorists subsidize him?

Sounds like a confused tax authority.

I find it absolutely appalling that someone employed by the state actually made the decision to send to special agents to this man's home. A letter of inquiry or something to that effect would have been one thing, but to send actual agents is such a bad decision. What kind of response could they really have hoped to illicit?

Good point about bicycles. Although some cities do technically require you to have a bike license which is in the form of a sticker usually. They run 5-10 dollars and a portion of the fee goes to building/maintaining bike trails/racks etc. At least that's what your told heh.

While it could have been handled better, the laws were on the books, correct? He should have followed them and looked to see if he had to pay tax.

Most money for road building and maintenance comes out of the general taxes, at least in the US. Bicyclists, veggie-oil-vehicle drivers, gas-guzzling-SUV owners, pedestrians, and hermits who never leave their house all pay pretty the same basic rate for public roads. Same with schools, the military, the President's bed linens, and so on. Some taxes are earmarked (ow!) for certain projects, but that money is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that comes from the general tax funds.

What might be better (or at least simpler) than paying as you go, or for what you use, would be to let people choose what to fund. Then you'd get a clear picture of what people think is important. And when certain things start falling apart, they may change their minds to be more realistic about what's actually important, or they may change their lifestyles to make that thing less important.

"Sounds like a confused tax authority."

David, you are most likely correct. As a small business owner in Illinois, I have first-hand knowledge of the IL Dept of Revenue not knowing what they are doing. However, in my case, all I ever needed to do was call them up and say "hey, you have it wrong!" and then I hear typing on a keyboard and they respond "ok, I fixed it for you." I do this about twice a year.

Perhaps this incident could have been entirely avoided if Mr Wetzel had tried to sort out the problem before the visit from the tax men.

For what it's worth, the man is hardly doing any favors for the environment, either. Burning vegetable oil in a diesel car is an EXTREMELY dirty practice. He might as well be lighting up a pile of tires on fire for all the soot, NOx and other contaminants he is spewing into the environment. If the guy wants to save the planet and still drive a car, he should pick up one of the newer Mercedes diesels.

Yes Uncle Sam and State Government please interfere in our lives more... I just can't survive without your help. I wonder if I owe more taxes on the food I eat to power my bicycle? It is a transportation fuel.

Only because the state critters are morons. The tax loss to WVO is minimal even at its maximum. Just look at how much vegatable oil there is IN TOTAL compared to how much taxed fuel that is used.

Bio Fuels can not replace regular fuels. if we converted 100% of the arable land on earth to production of bio fuels we still could not meet our demands.

HE is not only using less gas he is RECYCLING something that might otherwise do WORSE for the environment when its disposed of.

He should be commended. While we could never all switch to biofuels those that can SHOULD and then should be REWARDED for it not punished.

He should send them a $2.50 check and mark is as Penalty for saving the environment state fund.

If I had a solar powered car that runs solely on solar power, should I get taxed too?

If you buy gas, you should be taxed on the gas that you buy. If you don't buy the gas, then you shouldn't have to pay for the tax, unless they set up a specific tax for it, like a tax for using a bike. Just because he uses the road doesn't mean he has to pay tax.

Man, this is outrageous. The government shouldn't be nickle and dim'ing the little guys, especially those who should be applauded for being innovative.

A few years ago there were some developers in San Diego that were putting solar on the roofs of their entire projects. The tax people rushed in and said there was a tax on electricity in Cali, regardless of the source and that it required licences, meters and inspections for that size, etc.

Yeah. California wanted to tax the Sun.

One of the developers hired a PI and found it was the electric utility that put the tax guys up to it. It ended up going to court and the court said that the developers could *not* put solar power on every house by default.

Incidently, a bunch of the casinos also participated in a large scale kitchen grease to biodiesel project which was ended up being barred from selling to the public for a bunch of BS reasons too.

Regarding emmisions from veg oil diesels:
Here are the facts:

This is an up-to-date report by an EPA certified lab -
http://vegoil.us/pdf%20files/ABQAltEntestPR.pdf