Regulations

New Jersey Looking To Remove Unfair Nicotine Tax

On June 21st, 2018, the New Jersey legislature passed A4132 (1R) which would enact a 10c/mL tax on e-liquid containing nicotine. This was a major blow to local vape shops who sell vape juice to its customers who are looking to break the smoking habit with a much safer alternative to get their nicotine. 

This bill was sponsored and co-sponsored by:

Pintor Marin, Eliana   as Primary Sponsor
Timberlake, Britnee N.   as Primary Sponsor
Mukherji, Raj   as Primary Sponsor
Sarlo, Paul A.   as Primary Sponsor
Mosquera, Gabriela M.   as Co-Sponsor

So, where is New Jersey one year later after this bill? Well, its facing many claims by advocates stating that this was meant to “shut down” local vape shops as they would no longer be able to expect customers to pay in excess of $30.00 per bottle, thus forcing people to pick back up those nasty packs of cigarettes. 

During my investigation into this current law  “A4132 (1R) ” I was  (and still am) waiting to get clarity as the text used in this bill clearly states that the tax would only apply to the liquid nicotine portion based on manufacturer label. Meaning, this law should be only collecting $1.50 per 50ml bottle of 3mg strength. Those figures are based off assuming the manufacturer is using a 100mg strength nicotine base fluid. The “tax amount” would increase if the manufacturer is using a lower mg strength of base nicotine fluid. 

So what’s next?

Well, its honestly looking up for New Jersey residents who purchase bottles of juice to refill their tanks. 

There are currently two bills that have been introduced into New Jersey Legislation that aim to remove this harsh tax attack. 

I cannot release names to sources at this time due to pending investigation requests but will be following up to this by Friday, 6/14/2019  and can confirm sources names at that time. 

What I can say however is that ASSEMBLY, No. 4391 is aimed at removing the current ($0.10 per/ml floor tax) and applying a 3.5% retail tax on all vaping products.  This bill was introduced on September 13, 2018. I am currently awaiting a response from Assemblyman  JOHN J. BURZICHELLI office to make a statement in regards to this bill as well as the current progress and outcome speculations. Both will be followed up on by 6/14/2019

Competing Bill

SENATE, No. 3877 introduced just 8 days ago (from this stories date) MAY 30, 2019 also looks to remove the floor tax of $0.10/per/ml from bottles of juice while leaving the $0.10/per/ml on all pod type products. 

A 10 cent tax on a 1ml pod is nothing compared to the current “interpretation” of the current law in place for those looking to buy say, a 100ml bottle of 3mg juice with an additional $10.00 tax on top of a $20.00+ bottle of juice putting that product out of the justifiable price range for almost all vapers.

What is interesting is that this bill is submitted and sponsored by Senator Paul A Sarlo, one of the key sponsors of the bill that made its way to become the current vape tax in place now.  A4132 (1R) 

Could this be an admittance by the Senator that they made a mistake with A4132 (1R) or is this just an attempt to provide “legal” clarity of what I started this investigation to find out, that there were mass interpretation problems of the A4132 (1R) 

below is the actual text from A4132 (1R) 

“The bill imposes the tax at the rate of $0.10 per milliliter of
liquid nicotine, and a proportionate rate on fractional parts of a milliliter of liquid nicotine, as listed by the manufacturer.”

SENATE, No. 3877  would remove the ml tax to all “juice bottles” and apply a standard 10% of the listed retail price. 

Also, this bill will set out to make all vape shops register with the state as a “Vapor Business” and maintain the proper state license as well as pay a $50 annual fee to stay registered. 

This bill is not expected to be addressed until July 2019

According to Senator Paul Sarlo (D), and SENATE, No. 3877 

“A vapor business is a retail business where more than 50 percent
of its retail sales are derived from electronic smoking devices,
related accessories, and liquid nicotine. A retail business that does
not sell container e-liquid is not included in the definition of vapor
business.”

Stay up to date with this by subscribing. I will be releasing another followup on this issue next week and include all of my contacts and sources inside these senators and assemblymen’s team.

Tim Court
Editor -In- Chief, The Vape Wire. Have something you think we should know? Contact me now @ newsdesk@thevapewire.com

Leave a Reply