VAIL SUCKS

[2Planker]

Do not doubt our resolve to never pay sales tax here in New Hampshire!

The governor is on it!

Welcome to NH - Live Free (of Sales Tax) or Die

 

[cdskier]

It absolutely is an estimate because years of data is kind of irrelevant in a weather dependent industry. Look how off the numbers were out West this year as an example. Or for an extreme outlier , look at the COVID year.

I think no matter how you slice it, there's some degree of estimation / cocktail napkin math involved. The states and the consumers are all but certain to be over or under charged.

I had an Epic pass for two years. Covid year I skied about 30 days in NH and 4 in Vermont. The following year I skied about 30 days in NH exclusively. My guess is I was charged the same amount in tax as all other Epic pass buyers. I highly doubt Vails software is smart of to say okay VT, deadheadskier skied 4 days in your state this year, so you get this much in tax revenue from him. This year he didn't ski in your state at all, so you get nothing. In that case, I'm getting over charged on tax and Vail is pocketing the surplus.

I think we’re talking 2 different things here. The only estimate is what Vail chose to use as the percentage to add on as a separate fee. What they pay the individual states is based on actual usage which is what I was referring to. The “tax” surcharge very well could be too much or too little as they can’t predict exactly what the purchase or usage will be next season. I made the comment days ago that the only way to get that 100% right would be to send every passholder a bill at the end of the season. I’m sure no one wants that. So yes, allocating the costs evenly across all purchases is the only somewhat fair way to do it. But I still think just including the taxes in the base fee is the better approach. No one sees it and no one complains.

Vail isn’t doing the allocation on an individual pass holder basis. They’re looking at all sales and usage in aggregate to determine what they owe the states. The money just comes out of one bucket. Note that vail does not specifically call it “sales tax” on the checkout page. They call it “taxes & fees” which likely their lawyers came up with to protect them in case they collect too much overall.

Again, the way vail is now doing this is stupid. But equally silly to argue that NH residents are exempt from paying taxes in other states if they use services in those states.

 

[Smellytele]

I think we’re talking 2 different things here. The only estimate is what Vail chose to use as the percentage to add on as a separate fee. What they pay the individual states is based on actual usage which is what I was referring to. The “tax” surcharge very well could be too much or too little as they can’t predict exactly what the purchase or usage will be next season. I made the comment days ago that the only way to get that 100% right would be to send every passholder a bill at the end of the season. I’m sure no one wants that. So yes, allocating the costs evenly across all purchases is the only somewhat fair way to do it. But I still think just including the taxes in the base fee is the better approach. No one sees it and no one complains.

Vail isn’t doing the allocation on an individual pass holder basis. They’re looking at all sales and usage in aggregate to determine what they owe the states. The money just comes out of one bucket. Note that vail does not specifically call it “sales tax” on the checkout page. They call it “taxes & fees” which likely their lawyers came up with to protect them in case they collect too much overall.

Again, the way vail is now doing this is stupid. But equally silly to argue that NH residents are exempt from paying taxes in other states if they use services in those states.

Some may not use it in other states or may in states without sales tax. Maybe going forward you’ll have to state which states you are going to use it in or make a reservation in other states were you will then be charged tax on your daily usage in those states…
Not a great solution.

 

[thetrailboss]

No...there was an article posted previously on this topic (not sure if it was this thread or another thread) where Vail outlined how they were allocating the taxes. They allocate the taxes based on the overall pass usage at each resort in jurisdictions where tax is required to be collected. Again, Vail was always paying this. They just were never calling it out as a separate charge on the purchase.

I think the article was from a newspaper in Utah where people expressed concerns when Vail purchased Park City that Utah would be shafted on taxes. They clarified that wasn't the case as they were still obligated to pay taxes even on a multi-resort pass with corporate HQ in another state (CO).

From what I have seen, a lot of state and local taxing entities have wisened up on lift tickets and season passes. My sense is that some were not enforcing collections and with the demand on state and local government growing now they are more concerned about collecting the tax. Alta and Snowbird never used to charge sales tax on season passes (at least as a line item) but about five years ago they suddenly were.

The Vail/IKON multijurisdictional issue is very, very interesting. Talk about a nightmare for accounting/legal having to track sales/pass allocations to then submit the tax revenue to states and towns/cities. What a headache.

 

[kbroderick]

From what I have seen, a lot of state and local taxing entities have wisened up on lift tickets and season passes. My sense is that some were not enforcing collections and with the demand on state and local government growing now they are more concerned about collecting the tax. Alta and Snowbird never used to charge sales tax on season passes (at least as a line item) but about five years ago they suddenly were.

The Vail/IKON multijurisdictional issue is very, very interesting. Talk about a nightmare for accounting/legal having to track sales/pass allocations to then submit the tax revenue to states and towns/cities. What a headache.

I think a lot of places are catching up with the multi-jurisdictional use tax question. It is complicated--not every state taxes lift tickets, and even those that do may not tax season passes; then you've you smaller jurisdictions (municipal and county) with their own taxes, sometimes in states that don't have statewide sales and use taxes, and at least in my experience in a Montana town with a local option tax, a lot less infrastructure and oversight around collections and rules (eg whether or not bar soap is a luxury item subject to the tax).

I was under the impression that some USFS leases also involved revenue shares, which if true would seem to be another sticky issue with one of the passes with access to places small and large (eg is a day of use at Big Sky assigned the same value as a night use at Pleasant Mountain?).

 

[crystalmountainskier]

I was under the impression that some USFS leases also involved revenue shares, which if true would seem to be another sticky issue with one of the passes with access to places small and large (eg is a day of use at Big Sky assigned the same value as a night use at Pleasant Mountain?).

1.5 percent of revenue below $6,179,000, 2.5% from $6,179,000 to $30,915,000, 2.75% from $30,915,00 To <$103,044,00, 4% above $103,044,000.

 

[deadheadskier]

Vail really should just wash their hands of the NH ski areas. We're clearly just a nuisance for them.

 

[deadheadskier]

Take that Bobby! Ya don't mess with New Hampshire! No sales tax ever ya hear?!?

New Hampshire Wins: Vail Resorts Drops Epic Pass Tax for Granite State-Only Skiers Amid State Investigation

Vail Resorts announced today that the new Epic blended sales tax will not apply to New Hampshire local skiers.

snowbrains.com

 

[chuckstah]

Nice! But I think I'll pay the $14 and keep my Stowe days

 

[thetrailboss]

Take that Bobby! Ya don't mess with New Hampshire! No sales tax ever ya hear?!?

New Hampshire Wins: Vail Resorts Drops Epic Pass Tax for Granite State-Only Skiers Amid State Investigation

Vail Resorts announced today that the new Epic blended sales tax will not apply to New Hampshire local skiers.

snowbrains.com

Yeah if one stays only in NH…..

[B]A policy that quietly frustrated skiers across New Hampshire has just been reversed — at least for Granite State residents or those intending to ski only within the state. [/B]After backlash over a newly introduced ~3.2% “blended” tax on Epic Pass products, Vail Resorts announced today that it will allow local pass holders to avoid the charge entirely — if they choose to ski only at its four New Hampshire resorts. The move comes just days after Kelly Ayotte confirmed the state had opened an official investigation into the policy.

 

[deadheadskier]

I read the fine print and that seems fair. Be interesting to see how many folks choose the option.

 

[cdskier]

That proposal is certainly fair. Seems foolish though to save a few bucks just to eliminate the possibility of being able to ski resorts like Stowe, Okemo or Mt Snow. If you're 100% sure you will only ski the NH resorts and not be tempted to even make a quick trip to VT, makes sense I suppose. Will certainly be interesting to see how many go for that...

 

[chuckstah]

That proposal is certainly fair. Seems foolish though to save a few bucks just to eliminate the possibility of being able to ski resorts like Stowe, Okemo or Mt Snow. If you're 100% sure you will only ski the NH resorts and not be tempted to even make a quick trip to VT, makes sense I suppose. Will certainly be interesting to see how many go for that...

Mostly Epic day pass users would go for the NH option. The cheapest version is only the NH resorts, and some PA and Midwest bumps that almost no NH residents would go to.

 

[cdskier]

Mostly Epic day pass users would go for the NH option. The cheapest version is only the NH resorts, and some PA and Midwest bumps that almost no NH residents would go to.

Yea...that makes sense. You're buying those with a very limited number of specific days in mind. I bet most people complaining were not Epic day pass purchasers though...

 

[urungus]

Hopefully Vail is now aware that they own ski areas in New Hampshire

 

[deadheadskier]

That proposal is certainly fair. Seems foolish though to save a few bucks just to eliminate the possibility of being able to ski resorts like Stowe, Okemo or Mt Snow. If you're 100% sure you will only ski the NH resorts and not be tempted to even make a quick trip to VT, makes sense I suppose. Will certainly be interesting to see how many go for that...

Well to be fair, think of yourself. You own real estate at Sugarbush and don't most seasons you only ski there? Not sure if you buy iKon or Bush only. Not saying it's apples to apples because there's a bigger cost differential with your example.

But, there's tons of second home owners in the MWV who only ski Wildcat and Attitash. Kinda like how you pretty much just ski Sugarbush. Locals too that only ski those two. Probably some locals that only ski Crotched and Sunapee as well.

I'd probably pay the tax for Stowe access. Don't care much about Okemo, Snow or much else. Mt Saint Anne maybe cool one year.

Mainly I just find it humorous the governor got involved and Vail quickly backed down.

 

[cdskier]

Well to be fair, think of yourself. You own real estate at Sugarbush and don't most seasons you only ski there? Not sure if you buy iKon or Bush only. Not saying it's apples to apples because there's a bigger cost differential with your example.

But, there's tons of second home owners in the MWV who only ski Wildcat and Attitash. Kinda like how you pretty much just ski Sugarbush. Locals too that only ski those two. Probably some locals that only ski Crotched and Sunapee as well.

I'd probably pay the tax for Stowe access. Don't care much about Okemo, Snow or much else. Mt Saint Anne maybe cool one year.

Mainly I just find it humorous the governor got involved and Vail quickly backed down.

I do try to go at least 1 day somewhere else every season (went to Pico this year on Ikon but also do K on Ikon sometimes). There were even several years that I bought an Epic Day pass (specifically so I could ski a day at Stowe). For me personally, a <$20 difference would not make me want to restrict my choices that much. I guess for me, even if I don't use it, I like knowing I have the flexibility and option to do so should the right situation come along.

Vail probably crunched the numbers and saw it just wasn't worth the hassle to fight on this for the small subset of people this would apply to in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

[thetrailboss]

Seems like a lot of ink, emotion, and energy for what is $31.77 for a full EPIC and $24.77 for a local pass. I get the principle argument and you all know that I can get fired up about principle, but that’s not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. My sales tax (9%) results in a big hit, but $31.77 is relatively minor. It’s still money though. What is that, the cost of a beer or an “I Love Vail” hat?

The solution they offered is a good compromise. They probably should have looked at all that data to see that there were a lot of NH residents who only ski in NH and thought ahead about offering this NH only option. But I imagine that the plan was to spread the tax burden amongst all passholders regardless of their location.

 

[snoseek]

Yeah kelley Ayotte! Words I would never thought i would say!

 

[machski]

Seems like a lot of ink, emotion, and energy for what is $31.77 for a full EPIC and $24.77 for a local pass. I get the principle argument and you all know that I can get fired up about principle, but that’s not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. My sales tax (9%) results in a big hit, but $31.77 is relatively minor. It’s still money though. What is that, the cost of a beer or an “I Love Vail” hat?

The solution they offered is a good compromise. They probably should have looked at all that data to see that there were a lot of NH residents who only ski in NH.

Not a lot in money now, but wait til Vail jacks up the % tax. At least NH set precedent now.