Fox News

San Diego reduces tax-payer burden by having responsible parties pay for fire department accident response.

It appears you do not have the Adobe Flash Player installed.
Click here to download and install the flash player. When it's done installing, refresh this page to play the video.

Alternatively, you may download the video and play it back locally.

Click to download the video,    to view full screen.

Is this double taxation?
This question is being asked less and less because people are beginning to understand the term “reimbursable expenses”.

First, let’s look at a little history. Both the legal definition and the public perception of double taxation originate from the “Municipal Cost Recovery Rule”. This rule is important because it denies government agencies the right to sue for response costs created by purported injuries to its citizens - rather than for damage to property or something similar. The courts determined this was a form of “taxation through litigation”. The court felt that if the legislature concludes that the costs of a certain public service should be borne by the parties whose conduct necessitates that service (rather than the taxpayers in general) it has the ability to enact a statute expressly authorizing recovery of such cost.

The Federal and State Legislatures have passed laws concluding that it is the responsibility of the parties whose conduct necessitates the fire department response to pay for that response, rather than the taxpayers in general. By understanding the law and the court’s decision, it now becomes very clear who is responsible for the reimbursable expenses incurred by the fire department while responding to MVA’s with fluid spills. Many municipalities pass ordinances to further define what the department can bill for. By following these guidelines we are recovering those reimbursable expenses that have been deemed by law to be recoverable.