Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

(Continued)

Discussion and Analysis > Operating Results by Business Segment > Tobacco > Business Environment

Taxes, Legislation, Regulation and Other Matters Regarding Tobacco and Smoking

The tobacco industry, both in the United States and abroad, faces a number of challenges that may continue to adversely affect the business, volume, results of operations, cash flows and financial position of PM USA, PMI and ALG. These challenges, which are discussed below and in the Cautionary Factors That May Affect Future Results, include:

• the civil lawsuit, in which trial is currently underway, filed by the United States federal government seeking approximately $280 billion from various cigarette manufacturers and others, including PM USA and ALG, discussed in Note 19. Contingencies (“Note 19”);
• a compensatory and punitive damages judgment totaling approximately $10.1 billion against PM USA in the Price Lights/Ultra Lights class action, and punitive damages verdicts against PM USA in other smoking and health cases discussed in Note 19;
• a $74 billion punitive damages judgment against PM USA in the Engle smoking and health class action, which has been overturned by a Florida district court of appeal and is currently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court;
• pending and threatened litigation and bonding requirements as discussed in Note 19;
• competitive disadvantages related to price increases in the United States attributable to the settlement of certain tobacco litigation;
• actual and proposed excise tax increases worldwide as well as changes in tax structure in foreign markets;
• the sale of counterfeit cigarettes by third parties;
• the sale of cigarettes by third parties over the Internet and by other means designed to avoid the collection of applicable taxes;
• price gaps and changes in price gaps between premium and lowest price brands;
• diversion into one market of products intended for sale in another;
• the outcome of proceedings and investigations involving contraband shipments of cigarettes;
• governmental investigations;
• actual and proposed requirements regarding the use and disclosure of cigarette ingredients and other proprietary information;
• actual and proposed restrictions on imports in certain jurisdictions outside the United States;
• actual and proposed restrictions affecting tobacco manufacturing, marketing, advertising and sales;
• governmental and private bans and restrictions on smoking;
• the diminishing prevalence of smoking and increased efforts by tobacco control advocates to further restrict smoking;
• governmental regulations setting ignition propensity standards for cigarettes; and
• other actual and proposed tobacco legislation both inside and outside the United States.

In the ordinary course of business, PM USA and PMI are subject to many influences that can impact the timing of sales to customers, including the timing of holidays and other annual or special events, the timing of promotions, customer incentive programs and customer inventory programs, as well as the timing of pricing actions and tax-driven price increases.

Excise Taxes: Cigarettes are subject to substantial excise taxes in the United States and to substantial taxation abroad. Significant increases in cigarette-related taxes have been proposed or enacted and are likely to continue to be proposed or enacted within the United States, the European Union (the “EU”) and in other foreign jurisdictions. In addition, in certain jurisdictions, PMI’s products are subject to discriminatory tax structures and inconsistent rulings and interpretations on complex methodologies to determine excise and other tax burdens.

These tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of cigarettes by PM USA and PMI, due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced tobacco products or to counterfeit and contraband products.



Tar and Nicotine Test Methods and Brand Descriptors: A number of governments and public health organizations throughout the world have determined that the existing standardized machine-based methods for measuring tar and nicotine yields do not provide useful information about tar and nicotine deliveries and that such results are misleading to smokers. For example, in the 2001 publication of Monograph 13, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (“NCI”) concluded that measurements based on the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) standardized method “do not offer smokers meaningful information on the amount of tar and nicotine they will receive from a cigarette” or “on the relative amounts of tar and nicotine exposure likely to be received from smoking different brands of cigarettes.” Thereafter, the FTC issued a press release indicating that it would be working with the NCI to determine what changes should be made to its testing method to “correct the limitations” identified in Monograph 13. In 2002, PM USA petitioned the FTC to promulgate new rules governing the use of existing standardized machine-based methodologies for measuring tar and nicotine yields and descriptors. That petition remains pending. In addition, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) has concluded that these standardized measurements are “seriously flawed” and that measurements based upon the current standardized methodology “are misleading and should not be displayed.”

In light of these conclusions, governments and public health organizations have increasingly challenged the use of descriptors—such as “light,” “mild,” and “low tar”—that are based on measurements produced by the standardized test methodologies. For example, the European Commission has concluded that descriptors based on standardized tar and nicotine yield measurements “may mislead the consumer” and has prohibited the use of descriptors. Public health organizations have also urged that descriptors be banned. For example, the Scientific Advisory Committee of the WHO concluded that descriptors such as “light, ultra-light, mild and low tar” are “misleading terms” and should be banned. In 2003, the WHO proposed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC”), a treaty that requires signatory nations to adopt and implement measures to ensure that descriptive terms do not create “the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products.” Such terms “may include ‘low tar,’ ‘light,’ ‘ultra-light,’ or ‘mild.’ ” For a discussion of the FCTC, see below under the heading “The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention for Tobacco Control.” In addition, public health organizations in Canada and the United States have advocated “a complete prohibition of the use of deceptive descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘mild.’ ”

See Note 19, which describes pending litigation concerning the use of brand descriptors.

Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Regulations: ALG and PM USA endorsed federal legislation introduced in May 2004 in the Senate and the House of Representatives, known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which would have granted the FDA the authority to regulate the design, manufacture and marketing of cigarettes and disclosures of related information. The legislation also would have granted the FDA the authority to combat counterfeit and contraband tobacco products and would have imposed fees to pay for the cost of regulation and other matters. Congress adjourned in October 2004 without adopting this legislation. Whether Congress will grant the FDA authority over tobacco products in the future cannot be predicted.

Tobacco Quota Buy-Out: In October 2004, the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was signed into law. FETRA provides for the elimination of the federal tobacco quota and price support program through an industry-funded buy-out of tobacco growers and quota holders. The cost of the proposed buy-out is approximately $9.6 billion and will be paid over 10 years by manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. The cost will be allocated based on the relative market shares of manufacturers and importers of all tobacco products. PM USA expects that its quota buy-out payments will offset already scheduled payments to the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust (the “NTGST”), a trust fund established in 1999 by four of the major domestic tobacco product manufacturers to provide aid to tobacco growers and quota-holders. Manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are also obligated to cover any losses (up to $500 million) that the government may incur on the disposition of pool stock tobacco accumulated under the previous tobacco price support program. PM USA’s share of tobacco pool stock losses cannot currently be determined, as the calculation of any such losses will depend on a number of factors, including the extent to which the government can sell such pool tobacco and thereby mitigate or avoid losses. For a discussion of the NTGST, see Note 19. Altria Group, Inc. does not anticipate that the quota buy-out will have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results in 2005 and beyond.

Following the enactment of FETRA, the trustees of the NTGST and the state entities conveying NTGST payments to tobacco growers and quota holders, alleging that the offset provisions do not apply to payments due in 2004, sued tobacco product manufacturers. In December 2004, a North Carolina court ruled that the tobacco manufacturers, including PM USA, are entitled to receive a refund of amounts paid to the NTGST during the first three quarters of 2004 and are not required to make the payments that would otherwise have been due during the fourth quarter of 2004. Plaintiffs have appealed. If the trial court’s ruling is upheld, PM USA would reverse accruals and receive reimbursements totaling $232 million.

Ingredient Disclosure Laws: Jurisdictions inside and outside the United States have enacted or proposed legislation or regulations that would require cigarette manufacturers to disclose the ingredients used in the manufacture of cigarettes and, in certain cases, to provide toxicological information. In some jurisdictions, governments have prohibited the use of certain ingredients, and proposals have been discussed to further prohibit the use of ingredients. Under an EU tobacco product directive, tobacco companies are now required to disclose ingredients and toxicological information to each Member State. In implementing the EU tobacco product directive, the Netherlands has issued a decree that would require tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients used in each brand of cigarettes, including quantities used. PMI and others have challenged this decree in the Dutch District Court of The Hague on the grounds of a lack of appropriate protection of proprietary information.