Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 20, pp. 450-460, 1993 0160-7383/93 $6.00 + .

OO
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1993 PergamJn Press Ltd.

AIR TRANSPORT TAX AND ITS

CONSEQUENCES ON TOURISM

R. I. R. Abeyratne
McGill University, Canada

Abstract: Since 1990, a worldwide proliferation of taxes on civil aviation

has raised numerous protests from the airline industry. A typical example
was the proposed the USTTA’s facilitation fee, which required airlines
and passenger shipping lines to pay a “user fee” on foreign nationals.
This imposition was perceived to be “discriminatory” in that it required
foreigners to bear the costs of promoting tourism to the United States.
This paper defines the term “tax” and “charge,” raises issues emerging
as a result of such taxations, discusses international responses to this
development, and concludes that both international air transport and
tourism are inextricably linked to each other and to tax one in order to
develop the other would be a self-defeating measure. Keywords: tax, air
transport, ICAO, IATA, law.
R&urn&: Les taxes sur le transport atrien et ses cons&quences pour le
tourisme. Depuis 1990 une prolif&ation au niveau mondial de taxes im-
posCes 2 l’aviation civile a produit de nombreuses protestations de la part
de l’industrie aCrienne. L’imposition d’une charge de facilitation proposte
par I’USTTA, laquelle exige des compagnies atriennes et des compagnies
maritimes de transport de passagers de payer une “redevance d’usage”
pour les ressortissants &rangers, en est un exemple typique. Cette imposi-
tion fut perCue comme &ant “discriminatoire” Ctant donnC qu’elle exige
<es Ctrangers qu’ils supportent les coQts de promotion du tourisme aux
Etats-Unis. Ce document dtfinit les termes “taxes” et “frais”, soul&e les
questions qui ressortent suite B de telles charges, discute des r&actions
internationales ?i ce sujet, et conclut que le transport atrien international
et le tourisme sont tous les deux likes de faGon inextricable et que le fait
d’en taxer un aiin de dtvelopper l’autre serait une mesure vouCe B I’tchec.
Mots-cl&: taxes, transport atrien, OACI, IATA, loi.

INTRODUCTION
The airline industry has, in the recent past, been adversely affected
by three phenomena: the recession, the Gulf war, and indirect taxation
of air travel (Gallacher 1992:28). The last phenomenon is alleged to

R. I. R. Abeyratne (Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, 3661 Peel
Street, Montreal HSAlXl, Canada), an aviation consultant, has published numerous
articles on international law and air law in leading law journals. He is a Fellow of the
Chartered Institute of Transport, and a Member of the Royal Aeronautical Society,
the British Association of Aviation Consultants, and the International Law Association
(Headquarters), and a doctoral research scholar at the Institute of Air and Space Law,
McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
450
 R. I. R. ABEYRATNE 451

be the most audacious. Among the many airline and ticket taxes, value
added taxes (VAT) and passenger charges that are now charged, is a
new hybrid called the “tourism tax.” This tax is ostensibly aimed at
developing tourism in the country whose government imposes the tax.
A typical example was the proposed United States Travel and Tourism
Administration (USTTA) facilitation fee. This fee came into being
when the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Budget Act)
amended the existing International Travel Act of 1961 to require air-
lines and passenger shipping lines to pay a “user fee.” This tax, called
the USTTA Fee, was seemingly intended to supplement US Govern-
ment coffers and pay for costs incurred by the US Government in the
administration of tourism to the country.
The fee was imposed on airlines and passenger shipping lines that
bring in foreign nationals who are on business or holiday. In view of
its blatant incompatibility with the logic that income from taxes on
international civil aviation should be solely used to develop interna-
tional civil aviation and not to enrich the government treasury or for
general public purposes, the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) has called this user fee on tourism administration “plain dis-
criminatory.” IATA has protested strongly that the US Government,
by imposing this so-called “facilitation fee” and requiring foreigners to
bear the costs of promoting tourism to the United States, is really
taxing an activity that the government is trying to encourage. More
recently, IATA vigorously opposed a “travel tax” that the Government
of Finland was proposing to impose on all travelers leaving the country
with tickets purchased in Finland. As a final desperate measure, some
US airlines and travel agents have now begun attaching a message to
ticket folders that the price of the ticket includes taxes and fees imposed
on air transportation, quoting inter alz’u, the $1 .OO US Travel and Tour-
ism fee. This fee would have cost the airlines an estimated $20 million
annually.
On 4 February 1992, however, the US Department of Commerce’s
Travel and Tourism Administration issued its final rule that obviated
the $1 facilitation fee levied per international passenger carried, on the
grounds of its inconsistency with the Chicago Convention. The Conven-
tion on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 December
1944, Article 15, provides, inter al&z, that no fees, dues, or other charges
shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of
transit over or entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a
contracting State of persons or property thereon (ICAO 1980).
The 1992 USTTA rule operates retrospectively to all fees not col-
lected for the first quarter of 1991 and thereafter. Notably, the ruling
was given after 120 requests from airlines and airline representatives
had flowed in to the US Department of Commerce, asking for exemp-
tions from the fee on the grounds that the imposition of the fee was
diametrically opposed to the norms of international treaties and agree-
ments. In rescinding the fee, the US Department of Commerce, in a
formal statement, stated:

We are committed to exploring alternative funding sources to support

the work of our agency [USTTA] but the facilitation fee is inconsis-
452 AIR TRANSPORT TAX

tent with international treaties and therefore an unsuitable way to

achieve it (Aviation Daily 1992:207).

It is incontrovertible that on this issue, both international civil avia-

tion and the tourism industry are inextricably linked. On the one
hand, it is claimed that airlines are asked to pay for tourism develop-
ment. On the other, since the traveler would ultimately bear the bur-
den of this tax, he/she would pay to develop tourism in the country in
which he has his sojourn. This makes the airline a “tax collector”
(Gallacher 1992) and the traveler a “tax payer” in a foreign country.
Either way, the government that imposes a tourism tax is making
persons (who are not morally required) pay for carrying out a responsi-
bility that really devolves upon the government concerned. This paper
would analyze this inconsistency.

IMPOSITION OF AIR FEE AND TOURISM

Definitions and Interpretations

A tax has been defined as a “pecuniary contribution made by persons
liable, for the support of government” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1990).
In judicial parlance, a tax has been accepted to be “a pecuniary burden
laid upon individuals or property to support the government and is a
payment exacted by legislative authority.” It has also been identified
as “annual compensation paid to government for annual protection
and for current support of government.” A classical definition of a tax
in an early American decision reads:

A ratable portion of the produce of the property and labour of the

individual citizens, taken by the nation, in the exercise of its sover-
eign rights, for the support of government, for the administration of
the laws, and as the means for continuing in operation the various
legitimate functions of the State (New London v. Miller in Connecti-
cut Reporter 1941:112).

According to these definitions, a tax is a very general imposition, often

described as a “once and for all” payment. Therefore, a tax could not
be named, as a specific tax, such as “aviation fuel tax” or “aircraft
equipment tax.” The fact that a tax was levied “for the support of the
government” makes its general nature more explicit.
In the case of Heirs v. Mitchell (Southern Reporter 1956:81), the
court held that a tax was:

An enforced contribution of money or other property, assessed in

accordance with some reasonable rule or apportionment by authority
of some sovereign State on persons or property within its jurisdiction
for the purpose of defraying the public expenses. Therefore, a tax
came to be known as a “contribution” and was regarded in a general
sense to be any contribution imposed by government upon individu-
als, for the use and service of the State, whether under the name of
toll, tribute, tallage, gable, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy,
supply, aid or any other name.
 R. I. R. ABEYRATNE 453

A charge has reference to impositions for improvements that are espe-

cially beneficial to particular individuals or property, and are imposed
in proportion to the benefits supposed to be conferred. Charges are
special and local impositions upon property in the immediate vicinity
of municipal improvements and are laid with reference to the special
benefit that the property is expected to have derived therefrom.
In a broader sense, taxes, as have been judicially defined, could be
considered as including assessments and charges. But practically, a
“tax” is a public burden imposed generally on the inhabitants of a
State or upon a division thereof for governmental purposes, without
reference to particular or peculiar benefits to particular individuals or
property. The main criticism of a tax is that it is a compulsory contri-
bution levied upon persons. . . . for the support of government (Hin-
shaw 1939:81) and, therefore, is a heavy demand upon one’s person or
resources.
As for the international airlines, they pay taxes like any other income
generating enterprise. Conceptually, there is nothing wrong with this
system except that, in recent times, taxation of the air transport indus-
try has become an intractable problem. Its magnitude was recently
highlighted in the United States, when chief executive officers of major
US carriers requested the Secretary of Transport that airlines in the
United States be allowed to buy jet fuel from US Government’s strate-
gic oil reserves at sensible prices (preferably, at prices that existed
before 2 August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait).
Taxation of international air transport has been causing the air
transport industry major concern over a sustained period of time. In
July 1989, IATA recorded that some 184 countries around the world
imposed 500 different ticket and airport taxes, charges, and fees on the
sale or use of international air transport. Some of these were customs,
immigration, and security charges. IATA argued that they were the
responsibility of the States and should not be borne by the airlines and
their passenger and shipper customers. Earlier, IATA had called on
airlines to resist new government-imposed taxes. There is now an
increasing awareness of such tax concepts as value-added tax (VAT) on
international air transport services, passenger facility charges (PFC),
airport security charges, air ticket surcharges, and even those that are
loosely termed as general aviation fees.
Of all these, perhaps the most contentious issue is the PFC in the
United States, where its imposition is sought to improve the nation’s
transportation system by alleviating the airport capacity problem.
Most charges that are imposed on air transport are regarded more
as a panacea to the financially debilitated international air transport
industry.
A charge levied upon the use of international air transport is ex-
pected to be utilised in the improvement of that industry, while a tax
is generally imposed in the national interest and is directed accordingly
towards the national treasury. In concept, the former is not objection-
able, since it is calculated to benefit a particular industry for which the
charge is collected, while the latter, it is claimed, should be borne
by States as part of their national responsibility. However, this clear
demarcation has often been shrouded in anomalous terminology result-
454 AIR TRANSPORT TAX

ing in a passenger service charge being identified as a tax imposed for

the national benefit. A legal opinion left the confusion worse con-
founded by stating that aviation taxes may be used only for aviation
purposes.

Categories of TaxeJ
Inasmuch as the PFC is the most contentious current issue, tax
imposed on aviation fuel is the most important (Lupton 1935:176).
Aviation fuel costs represent 10 % to 25 % of variable costs of an aver-
age airline. A small airline may have to bear even as much as 40% of
its operating costs on the purchase of fuel. The volatile fluctuation of
the world fuel market, and the rapidly changing economic conditions
would bear upon the fortune of an international carrier. Any taxes
imposed upon aviation fuels, however small, would have a significant
impact on aviation fuel costs and would, therefore, have a significant
impact on an airline’s budgetary and cash flow management. For this
reason, there is growing concern over the question of taxation of avia-
tion fuels and attempts would be pursued in the future by IATA to
negotiate reductions in fuel facility charges and taxes (Batik 1990: 11).
International airlines and other air transport enterprises face taxa-
tion conventionally in two broad areas that may be termed “consump-
tion” taxes and “revenue” taxes. The first category comprises taxes
related to consumption by air transport enterprises and airlines. These
are property taxes on aircraft engaged in international air transporta-
tion, as well as taxes on fuel and ground equipment and spare parts
and aircraft equipment. The latter group envelops income tax (whether
it be based on gross receipts or any other evaluation) based primarily
on the sale or use of international transport by air, business taxes,
municipal taxes, employees taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. There is a
third category which, by some, has been termed “nuisance” tax (Gor-
ecki 1958: 1031): head taxes such as the PFC, airport taxes, security
taxes, etc., as already noted. The “nuisance” tax is generally absorbed
by the passenger or client of the airline or air transport enterprise and
is, therefore, not a direct tax imposed on the air transport industry.
Of these three categories, the most inscrutable happens to be the
now controversial PFC of the United States. As was discussed earlier,
the passenger services charge is being confused with the conventional
definition of a tax. The PFC and the rules for its implementation were
drafted by the Department of Transport (DOT) and published on 3
May 1991. However, a provision permitting airports to impose a $1,
$2, or $3 fee had already been included in the initial legislation. The
purpose of levying the PFC - to ensure “public benefit” relating to
aviation, is typified in the concurrent enactment of the national noise
policy where “addressing the PFC and the noise provisions in a single
bill to ensure more capacity with less noise was a brilliant legislative
stroke” (Airport Support 199 1: 3).
On the one hand, proponents of the PFC argue that its levy would
assist the financial plans of 60 out of 100 of the busiest airports in the
United States which are presently undergoing expansion programs. It
is further argued that legislation allowing US airports to levy the PFC
 R. I. R. ABEYRATNE 455

to help finance capacity improvements could well break the back of

existing funding problems. On the other, its chief detractors maintain
that government should not be subsidized by airlines, or individuals
who use air transport. The solution to the problem of confusion be-
tween the various definitions of taxes and PFCs may be found in
viewing it as a “fee, n “toll,” or “user charge,” imposed merely to com-
pensate the authorities for the costs of the services rendered. The levy
should be an equitable means of raising revenues and not an arbitrary
one related to costs. It should also have political acceptance and consti-
tutional rectitude.
According to IATA, “tax” is an impost for raising revenue for the
general treasury and which will be used for general public purposes;
“charge” is an impost for raising revenue for specific aviation related
facilities and charges; and “fee” is another name for “tax” or “charge”
depending upon what the revenue is used for” (IATA 1989: 1).
IATA observes that during a period when the airline industry is
facing hard times, governments are urging the carriers to offer low
fares and then hitting them with new taxes and charges (International
Air Letter 1991:2). IATA further claims that the international airline
industry could be crippled by the increasing burden of taxes presently
being imposed by governments. A fortiori, IATA’s complaint is that
the imposition of such taxes are “discriminatory,” whereby one could
well deduce that IATA imputes to these “taxes” an absence of political
acceptability and constitutional consistence.
IATA’s main interest in the area of taxation in international air
transport is to protect its member airlines from any tax, charge, or
levy. The principle behind this approach is that, in the present context,
where there is an acute recession affecting air transport, airlines should
not be further burdened by being required to pay for what IATA calls
the responsibilities of individual States.

Policy Issues
The legal definition of a tax, as already noted, is that it is an enforced
contribution by the public or section thereof, introduced by legislative
decree, for the purposes of defraying public expenses. Judicially, a tax
has been identified as a “contribution,” among other synonyms. Ex-
perts in taxation maintain that the “efficiency” test in taxation calls for
devising tax levies that cause minimal reduction in or disruption of
overall productivity of a society (Harris 1983: 15). It is in this perspec-
tive that the overall context of taxation in the field of international air
transport should be viewed.
In many instances, “taxes” imposed on international air transport
have been labeled iniquitous. It is strongly claimed that a tax that is “a
compulsory contribution levied upon persons, property, or business
for the support of government: any assessment” is an onerous demand
upon any one’s person or resources and when imposed upon interna-
tional air transport justifies its definition as a verb-“to subject to a
severe strain.” While it is accepted that taxation must be for a public
purpose, the amount of the tax charged must be compatible with prin-
ciples of commerce and should be proportionate to the cost of the
456 AIR TRANSPORT TAX

specific facility or services used rather than the cost of overall govern-
mental services in general. The formula must admit of the tax being
directly proportionate to the cost of the service or facility used.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (created in 1944 to
promote the safe and orderly development of worldwide civil aviation)
is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for civil avia-
tion affairs. ICAO sets international standards and regulations neces-
sary for the safety, security, efficiency, and regularity of air transport
and serves as the medium for cooperation in all fields of international
civil aviation among its 176 contracting States. In November 1966,
the Council of this Organization adopted, inter alia, a resolution on
taxes related to the sale or use of international air transport whereby
the Council resolved: (a) that each Contracting State shall reduce to
the fullest practicable extent and make plans to eliminate as soon as its
economic conditions permit all forms of taxation on the sale or use of
international transport by air, including taxes on gross receipts of
operators and taxes levied directly on passengers or shippers; (b) that
each Contracting State shall notify the Organization of the extent to
which it currently levies taxes on the sale or use of international trans-
port by air and of the extent to which it is prepared to take action in
accordance with the principles of this Resolution, and thereafter keep
the Organization informed of any subsequent changes in its position
vis-a-vis the Resolution; and (c) that the information thus received
shall be published and transmitted to all Contracting States (ICAO
1966: 14).
On this basis, if tourism-related taxes, such as the USTTA fee, are
charged on the airlines, they would ineluctably come under the head-
ing of taxes imposed on the sale of international air transport. Al-
though ICAO treats taxation in the field of air transport primarily as a
facilitation issue (Abeyratne 1991: 106-l 17), there is nonetheless the
strong pronouncement by the Organization that this form of taxation is
“a relatively inequitable form of taxation and can create a considerable
obstacle to further development of air transport.” In one of its Com-
mentaries, ICAO recognizes that sales taxes on tickets purchased for
international air transport, where levied, increase the cost of air travel.
It is not unreasonable to argue, therefore, that the worst affected by
the increased cost of air travel would be the tourist.
At the recently concluded ICAO Conference on Airport and Route
Facility Management (CARFM) in November 1991, the Secretariat
focused attention of the conference to the fact that there are charges
levied on air transport which do not cover costs of functions required
by civil aviation, and resolved that States should refrain from imposing
charges for services and functions that are not associated (emphasis
added) with international civil aviation (ICAO 1991:38). It is very
much a fact for debate whether tourism is “associated with” interna-
tional civil aviation and, if this be the case, whether States should be
condoned if they imposed charges for services and functions related to
tourism. If indeed the answer to this problem is in the affirmative, and
if the USTTA fee and other similar ones go towards the enhancement,
development, or administration of tourism, then it would seem (by the
 R. I. R. ABEYRATNE 457

reasoning adopted by the CARFM conference) that the imposition of

such a fee would be permissible.

Tourism and Air Taxation

The most important attribute of tourism is that it is inextricably
linked to transport as the latter is the necessary precondition of tourism
(Burkhart and Medlic 1974:3). Tourism is a matter of being elsewhere,
and to be elsewhere implies transport. According to internationally
adopted definitions, a tourist is a temporary visitor staying at least 24
hours in the country he visits and the purpose of his visit is leisure.
Any one who visits a country for a lesser period of time is an “excur-
sionist.* Within these parameters, however, even a visitor on business
would be categorized as a tourist and would accordingly be included
as a business traveler, and so are the other two “visitor” categories of
holidaymakers and common interest travelers, such as “visiting friends
or relatives” (VFR). It is a general feature of any traveler to travel by
the cheapest route, paying the cheapest fare. Even the smallest reduc-
tion in price in travel fare would significantly increase tourist traffic in
most situations.
Observations on the implacable sensitivity of the tourism industry
to the inherent parsimony of the tourist are many. For example, “it is
safe to suggest or to conclude that when prices fluctuate, “tourists’
money is spent where it goes farthest,” which is just another way of
saying that tourists are very sensitive to prices in various tourism
markets. Thus, the impact of economic fluctuation, the devaluation of
currency, and the restriction of tourism importing countries on the
amount of money to be taken out by their nationals will be felt in the
tourism exporting countries” (Safari 1973). It is logical, therefore, to
consider taxation on tourism as a negative feature.
The watershed event of world tourism was the United Nations Con-
ference on International Travel and Tourism Development held in
Rome in 1963, which pronounced as tourism’s fundamental attribute
its “contribution to the strengthening of the economies of all countries
. . . through the diversification of economic activities . . . n Its theme
of economic development was later read into the creation of the World
Tourism Organization whose fundamental aim includes “the promo-
tion and development of tourism with a view to contributing to eco-
nomic development . . . ” (United Nations 1971:Annex, p. 1).
Actually, the thread of economic development achieved through
tourism runs through the entire fabric of community development.
One of the main objectives of the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD)-one of the strongest world bodies
that promote tourism-is to achieve the highest sustainable economic
growth in member countries and to contribute to sound economic
expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process
of their development. Therefore, the foregoing discussion leaves no
room for doubt that any economic constraint brought upon tourism
would defeat the objectives of the industry and can lead to its decline.
A basic concern of economics- the study of production and of the
458 AIR TRANSPORT TAX

wide spread use of unconventional means on an alternative or recipro-

cal basis (Lesourne 1963) -applies to tourism, together with the apho-
rism that economics teaches man to employ scarce resources to produce
commodities over time for the use of his community (Samuelson 1967:
5). Analogically, the scarce resources as applicable to tourism are the
various means of transport that support the backbone of the tourism
industry. It would undoubtedly benefit the industry therefore, if trans-
port were not regulated. Since this is by no means realistic in today’s
world, particularly in air transport, the tourism industry is compelled
to use this scarce resource in the most cost-effective manner. On the
one hand, the tourism industry is trying to bring down the cost of
travel. A world of low air fares and low overhead charges is its ultimate
dream. On the other, the airline industry is constantly looking towards
increasing air fares and the civil aviation world is attempting to in-
crease landing charges, ground handling charges, and the like. Addi-
tional charges on tourism would only succeed in unhinging this imbal-
ance further.

CONCLUSIONS
1990 began with obstacles to international travel being obviated in
Europe, with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall as a main signifier.
Any hopes of this euphoria being permanent or long lived were shat-
tered with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August which jacked up
energy prices and dampened the spirits of the traveler. Be that as it
may, World Tourism Organization (WTO) figures reflect a record
415 million international arrivals in 1990, or 2.4 ‘$J above the 405
million recorded the previous year. The value of world tourism also
increased by $21 billion (from $209 billion in 1989 to $230 billion in
1990) (Britannica Data Annual 1991:226).
The International Civil Aviation Organization has recorded that
annual passenger traffic declined in 1991 for the first time, although
there is every sign of recovery late in the year and a growth in 1992.
In addition, ICAO has released statistics that reflect a worldwide pas-
senger upturn of 3 % in October 1990 over the same month in the
previous year, and a 7% upturn in November 1990 on the same basis
(Aviation Week and Space 1992:32). These figures are very encourag-
ing and show a positive trend in the expansion of tourism worldwide.
As already discussed, international air transport and tourism are
inextricably linked. It may even be arguable that tourism could be
“associated” with civil aviation, in which case, a charge levied on tour-
ism would be generally permissible in principle. There is a caveat,
however, that the word “charge” is emphasized and that any levy
should be used for the development of the activity on whose name it is
made. The fact that air transport is heavily regulated adds weight to
this principle and makes any charge on tourism seem justifiable.
A seemingly compelling argument for the charging of fees for tour-
ism development is that the fares charged to the passenger do not cover
the full cost to society of providing the transport in question (e.g., the
construction of roads and railways, the expropriation of lands, and the
maintenance of year-round tourism infrastructures to balance off-peak
 R. I. R. ABEYRATNE 459

periods). Another ostensibly compelling argument in favor of the im-

position of the tourism fee is that which supports the State in its en-
deavor to curb noise pollution and congestion and costs incurred there-
fore, where such a charge is considered a compensation for society that
is “inconvenienced.” A more lofty justification often used is the “flag
discrimination” theory where in some States, foreign carriers are
charged a royalty or tourism charge for bringing in visitors to a country
on the basis that the national carrier is deprived the privilege of carry-
ing those tourists to its own country.
If the above arguments were to prevail, then analogically a restau-
rant owner could charge the patrons a special fee for beautifying the
restaurant and providing conveniences therein. The restaurateur could
also impose a special charge when it is an off-peak period for the
restaurant.
The US Department of Commerce has given the most sensible and
logically reasoned response to this question by rescinding its USTTA
facilitation fee. It has used the most compelling source for its conclu-
sion - the written word-After all, does not the Chicago Convention
say in its Article 15 that no fees, dues or other charges shall be imposed
by any contracting State in respect of the entry into or exit from its
territory of any aircraft of a contracting State or persons or property
thereon? The very thought that any country could contemplate impos-
ing a special charge on tourism, therefore, becomes a legally and mor-
ally bankrupt one. 0 0

REFERENCES
Abeyratne, R. I. R.
1991 Taxation in the Field of International Air Transport: Legal Aspects. Air Law
16:106-117.
Airport Support
1991a Comment. Airport Support 9:3.
Aviation Daily
1992 Commerce Department Pulls Facilitation Fee Paid by Carriers. Aviation Daily
(February 4):207.
Aviation Week and Space Technology
1992 ICAO Confirms Traffic Decline in 1991 Amid Hopes for New Growth by
Summer. Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 13):32.
Batik, Jerry
1990 Aviation Fuel: A Volatile Market. IATA Review 1:11-12.
Black’s Law Dictionary
1990 Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed). Saint Paul MN: West Publishing.
Britannica Data Annual
1991 Britannica Data Annual. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.
Burkart, A. J., and Medlick, S.
1981 Tourism: Past, Present and Future. London: Heinemann.
Connecticut Reporter
1941 Connecticut Reporter. St. Paul MN: West Publishing.
Gallacher, Jacqueline
1992 Taxing Times. Airline Business Uanuary):28-30.
Gorecki. H. 1.
1958 international Airline Taxes and Charges. Interavia 10:1031.
1991 Outlook Gloomv at IATA if Airline Taxes Continue to Rise. Interavia Air
Letter (16 January):2.
Harris, Edwin C.
1983 Canadian Income Tax. Stoneham MA: Butterworths.
460 AIR TRANSPORT TAX

Hinshaw, Hainer
1939 The Protection of Aviation from Inequitable Taxation. Journal of Air Law 9:
75-94.
IATA
1989 IATA List of Ticket and Airport Taxes and Fees (Vol. 1). Montreal: IATA.
ICAO
1966 ICAO’s Policies on Taxation in the Field of International Air Transport
(ICAO Dot 8632-C/968). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organization.
1980 The Chicago Convention (ICAO Dot 7300/6, 6th ed.), Montreal: Intema-
tional Civil Aviation Organization.
1991 Conference on Airport and Route Facility Management (ICAO Dot 9579-
CARFM 1991). Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organization.
v
Interavia Air Letter ’
1991 Interavia Air Letter. Coulsdon UK: Sentinel House.
Jafari, Jafar
1973 Role of Tourism on Socio-Economic Transformation of Developing Countries,
M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, USA.
Lesoume, Jacques
1963 Economic Analysis and Industrial Management. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Lupton, G. W.
1935 Civil Aviation Law. Chicago: Callaghan.
Samuelson, Paul A.
1989 Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Southern Reporter
1956 Southern Reporter. St. Paul MN: West Publishing.
United Nations
1971 United Nations Economic and Social Council (15th Session), Agenda Item
12(b), Dot E/4955:24/2/71. New York: United Nations.

Submitted 10 March 1992

Accepted 22 June 1992
Final version submitted 15 July 1992
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Alexander Anolik