Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:

AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
Download the letter
( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I tried the hot link six times and got back an error message that the file
had been corrupted.

Anybody able to use the hot link?

Neal

On 19 Mar 2004 15:07:57 GMT, (COUGARNFW) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>I tried the hot link six times and got back an error message that the file
>had been corrupted.
>
>Anybody able to use the hot link?
>
>Neal

It works for me:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf


Here's a copy of the (unformatted) text of the letter:


STATE OF CALIFORNIA
March 9, 2004
TO COUNTY ASSESSORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES:
EXEMPTION FOR AIRCRAFT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT
Four previous Letters To Assessors (LTA’s) have been issued on the
Historical Aircraft
Exemption: LTA’s 87/67, 88/36, 89/84 and 2002/90. These LTA’s
announced passage of the
exemption, identified the applicable statutory provisions, discussed
implementation procedures,
announced adoption of a statutory time frame for annual filing for the
exemption, and provided
additional clarifying information about subdivisions (b) and (c) of
Revenue and Taxation Code
section 220.5. LTA 2002/90 consolidated the issues identified in the
earlier LTA’s, and clarified
the meaning of the term “general transportation.” LTA 2002/90
superseded all of the prior
LTA’s regarding this topic.
In the continued interest of promoting uniformity in the application
of the exemption, this Letter
To Assessors is intended to provide guidance regarding the new
“certificate of attendance”
requirement, and to supplement Letter To Assessors No. 2002/90, dated
December 20, 2002.
Senate Bill 1059 (Stats. 2003, Ch. 604) went into effect January 1,
2004. Among its other
provisions, Senate Bill 1059 amended subdivision (b)(3) of section
220.5 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code by adding a requirement for a claimant to provide an
attendance certificate for
each event at which the aircraft was displayed during the prior year.
This provision is set forth
as follows:
When applying for an exemption pursuant to this section, the claimant
shall attach
to that application a certificate of attendance from the event
coordinator of the event
at which the aircraft was displayed as required by this paragraph.
Because the legislation was approved and chaptered in the fall, most
aircraft owners were
unaware that they would be subject to the certification of attendance
requirement during the prior
spring and summer when most display events occur. Therefore, we advise
assessors to recognize
that the requirement became effective after most aircraft had already
been displayed at various
times during 2003 and to waive the requirement for lien date 2004
claims.
In addition, to afford historical aircraft exemption claimants a
reasonable opportunity to comply
with this new requirement, we suggest assessors do the following:
CAROLE MIGDEN
First District, San Francisco
BILL LEONARD
Second District, Ontario
CLAUDE PARRISH
Third District, Long Beach
JOHN CHIANG
Fourth District, Los Angeles
STEVE WESTLY
State Controller, Sacramento
TIMOTHY W. BOYER
Interim Executive Director
No. 2004/012
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
PROPERTY AND SPECIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0064
916 445-4982 l FAX 916 323-8765
www.boe.ca.gov
TO COUNTY ASSESSORS 2 March 9, 2004
(1) Advise historical aircraft owners of the new requirement.
(2) Make available to historical aircraft owners a certificate of
attendance form that may
be used in lieu of attendance certificates from individual events. A
sample form,
provided by the California Assessors’ Association, is enclosed.
(3) Inform historical aircraft owners that, for purposes of claiming
the exemption for lien
date 2005, certificates of attendance must be completed for displays
attended in 2004
and must be provided with the historical aircraft exemption
application.
For lien date 2004, applications for historical aircraft exemption
should be processed in the same
manner as in prior years. Implementation of the amendments enacted by
SB 1059 has been
discussed with the California Assessors’ Association (CAA) Business
Property Subcommittee.
The recommendation of the CAA regarding administration of the
certificate of attendance
requirement for lien dates 2004 and 2005 is consistent with the
guidance outlined above.
If you have any questions, please contact Lloyd B. Allred of our
Technical Services Unit at
(916) 324-7361.
Sincerely,
/s/ David J. Gau
David J. Gau
Deputy Director
Property and Special Taxes Department
DJG:ja
Enclosure
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
MA260-C/2004
Telephone Number:_________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Certifications of Participation for Aircraft of Historical
Significance for N________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Certifications of Participation for Aircraft of Historical
Significance for N________ Page 1 of 4
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
_________________________________________
Signature of Manager/Sponsor of Event
Days Aircraft on Display:___________
_________________________________________
Print Name
Display Time: ________a.m./p.m. to ________a.m./p.m.
MA260-C/2004
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Telephone Number:_________________________
Name of Event/Display:___________________________________
Date:_______________________
Address of Display:______________________________________
Page 2 of 4
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Page 3 of 4
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Page 4 of 4

On 19 Mar 2004 15:07:57 GMT, (COUGARNFW) wrote:

>I tried the hot link six times and got back an error message that the file
>had been corrupted.
>
>Anybody able to use the hot link?

Yes. Here's the text:

TO COUNTY ASSESSORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES:
EXEMPTION FOR AIRCRAFT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT

Four previous Letters To Assessors (LTA’s) have been issued on the
Historical Aircraft Exemption: LTA’s 87/67, 88/36, 89/84 and 2002/90.
These LTA’s announced passage of the exemption, identified the
applicable statutory provisions, discussed implementation procedures,
announced adoption of a statutory time frame for annual filing for the
exemption, and provided additional clarifying information about
subdivisions (b) and (c) of Revenue and Taxation Code
section 220.5. LTA 2002/90 consolidated the issues identified in the
earlier LTA’s, and clarified the meaning of the term “general
transportation.

LTA 2002/90 superseded all of the prior LTA’s regarding this topic.
In the continued interest of promoting uniformity in the application
of the exemption, this Letter To Assessors is intended to provide
guidance regarding the new certificate of attendance requirement, and
to supplement Letter To Assessors No. 2002/90, dated December 20,
2002.

Senate Bill 1059 (Stats. 2003, Ch. 604) went into effect January 1,
2004. Among its other provisions, Senate Bill 1059 amended subdivision
(b)(3) of section 220.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by adding a
requirement for a claimant to provide an attendance certificate for
each event at which the aircraft was displayed during the prior year.
This provision is set forth as follows:

When applying for an exemption pursuant to this section, the claimant
shall attach to that application a certificate of attendance from the
event coordinator of the event at which the aircraft was displayed as
required by this paragraph.

Because the legislation was approved and chaptered in the fall, most
aircraft owners were unaware that they would be subject to the
certification of attendance requirement during the prior spring and
summer when most display events occur. Therefore, we advise assessors
to recognize that the requirement became effective after most aircraft
had already been displayed at various times during 2003 and to waive
the requirement for lien date 2004 claims.

In addition, to afford historical aircraft exemption claimants a
reasonable opportunity to comply with this new requirement, we suggest
assessors do the following:

CAROLE MIGDEN
First District, San Francisco
BILL LEONARD
Second District, Ontario
CLAUDE PARRISH
Third District, Long Beach
JOHN CHIANG
Fourth District, Los Angeles
STEVE WESTLY
State Controller, Sacramento
TIMOTHY W. BOYER
Interim Executive Director
No. 2004/012
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
PROPERTY AND SPECIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0064
916 445-4982 l FAX 916 323-8765
www.boe.ca.gov

TO COUNTY ASSESSORS 2 March 9, 2004
(1) Advise historical aircraft owners of the new requirement.
(2) Make available to historical aircraft owners a certificate of
attendance form that may be used in lieu of attendance certificates
from individual events. A sample form, provided by the California
Assessors’ Association, is enclosed.
(3) Inform historical aircraft owners that, for purposes of claiming
the exemption for lien date 2005, certificates of attendance must be
completed for displays attended in 2004 and must be provided with the
historical aircraft exemption application.

For lien date 2004, applications for historical aircraft exemption
should be processed in the same manner as in prior years.
Implementation of the amendments enacted by SB 1059 has been
discussed with the California Assessors’ Association (CAA) Business
Property Subcommittee.

The recommendation of the CAA regarding administration of the
certificate of attendance requirement for lien dates 2004 and 2005 is
consistent with the guidance outlined above.

If you have any questions, please contact Lloyd B. Allred of our
Technical Services Unit at
(916) 324-7361.
Sincerely,
/s/ David J. Gau
David J. Gau
Deputy Director
Property and Special Taxes Department

If AOPA was on top of this from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go
through any of this, after all, the new rules were put forth by the CAA
(California Assessor' Association) which should be a red flag in anybodies
book. AOPA needs to get this overturned, not just delayed, think of the Tax
those WarBirds are going to pay!


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:
>
> AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
> At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
> has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
> historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
> restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
> confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
> requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
> from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
> to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
> Download the letter
> ( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
the CERTIFICATION of attendence.

Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.


"Gary L" > writes:

> If AOPA was on top of this from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go
> through any of this, after all, the new rules were put forth by the CAA
> (California Assessor' Association) which should be a red flag in anybodies
> book. AOPA needs to get this overturned, not just delayed, think of the Tax
> those WarBirds are going to pay!
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:
> >
> > AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
> > At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
> > has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
> > historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
> > restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
> > confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
> > requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
> > from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
> > to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
> > Download the letter
> > ( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
> All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
> shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
> the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
> the CERTIFICATION of attendence.
>
> Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
> that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
> failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
> on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
> for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
> exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
> use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
> try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
> system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
> hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
> considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.



The real scam in CA is that NONE of the personal property taxes go
towards supporting the aviation infrastructure!

It all goes into the General Fund -- then the pols claim that GA
"doesn't support itself and wants to tap the General Fund."

Orval Fairbairn > writes:

> The real scam in CA is that NONE of the personal property taxes go
> towards supporting the aviation infrastructure!
>
> It all goes into the General Fund -- then the pols claim that GA
> "doesn't support itself and wants to tap the General Fund."

Why should only aircraft personal property taxes be used for only
aviation? Car property taxes aren't used just for roads, they go into
the general fund.

Bob Fry wrote:

> Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
> All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
> shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
> the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
> the CERTIFICATION of attendence.
>
> Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
> that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
> failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
> on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
> for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
> exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
> use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
> try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
> system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
> hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
> considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.

Cripes, how do California residents continue to put up with such nonsense? Thank
goodness I fled that state a few years ago. Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

Well lets look at the "scam" I'm running. I have a 1948 Emigh Trojan, one
of 59 built and one of seven left, It costs me 10gal. of gas and $10
admission to the "airshow", thats $2.78/per gal. for a total of $27.80 plus
the $10 admission for a grand total of $37.80 per air show, times 12
airshows equal $353.60. The plane is worth 15K, so if I pay the taxes at 1%
equals $150 and not show the aircraft, I will save $203.60! Sounds like a
real "scam" to me! If you would like to get in on this scam e-mail me and
make me an offer, the plane is yours.


"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
> All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
> shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
> the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
> the CERTIFICATION of attendence.
>
> Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
> that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
> failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
> on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
> for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
> exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
> use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
> try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
> system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
> hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
> considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.
>
>
> "Gary L" > writes:
>
> > If AOPA was on top of this from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go
> > through any of this, after all, the new rules were put forth by the CAA
> > (California Assessor' Association) which should be a red flag in
anybodies
> > book. AOPA needs to get this overturned, not just delayed, think of the
Tax
> > those WarBirds are going to pay!
> >
> >
> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:
> > >
> > > AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
> > > At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
> > > has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
> > > historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
> > > restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
> > > confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
> > > requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
> > > from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
> > > to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
> > > Download the letter
> > > ( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------

In article >, Tara >
wrote:

> Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
> sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

did that really happen?

--
Bob Noel

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:10:30 -0500, Tara > wrote:

>Cripes, how do California residents continue to put up with such nonsense? Thank
>goodness I fled that state a few years ago. Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
>sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

Aren't those the same folks who in desperation elected a second rate
foreign movie actor to get them out of their troubles? There ya go!
They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow it
to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific. That would greatly
increase shore line property for Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.

Stu Gotts wrote:
>
> They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow it
> to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific.

No, just the southern part.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> Stu Gotts wrote:
>>
>> They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow
>> it to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific.
>
> No, just the southern part.

Patience, patience.
See "Richter 10" by Arthur C. Clarke

jue

"Gary Lee" > writes:

> Well lets look at the "scam" I'm running. I have a 1948 Emigh Trojan, one
> of 59 built and one of seven left,

<snip>

I described the scam people do in my first post on the topic, which
your plane doesn't seem like it matches. The scam is owning and
flying a fairly common, but old, aircraft--say a 1960 Cessna
172--which has little if any historical, "show" value, and furthermore
is used by the owner for travel other than to airshows (business
and/or pleasure). This plane's usage clearly does not meet the
criteria for exemption from yearly personal property tax (Section
220.5), yet the owner will claim that it does by lying about the
non-airshow travel and often lying about displaying it at
airshows. California is trying to at least get proof that the aircraft
was shown at airshows or display events
(http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf).

I agree that it is often not worth the trouble of flying to 12 events
and displaying the aircraft to save a few hundred dollars in taxes.
This is why more and more airports are putting on monthly "events"
where the owners display their old planes at their home airport.

Tara > writes:

> Bob Fry wrote:
>
> > Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
> > All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
> > shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
> > the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
> > the CERTIFICATION of attendence.
> >
> > Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
> > that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
> > failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
> > on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
> > for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
> > exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
> > use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
> > try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
> > system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
> > hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
> > considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.
>
> Cripes, how do California residents continue to put up with such
nonsense?

Uhm, what nonsense exactly?

> Thank
> goodness I fled that state a few years ago.

California also thanks you, and offers condolences to Massachusetts.

> Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
> sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

Seems hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it. However, the
above discussion is about annual personal property tax, NOT one-time
sales or use tax.

On 21 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0800, Bob Fry
> wrote:

>This is why more and more airports are putting on monthly "events"
>where the owners display their old planes at their home airport.

Hey! That sounds real "win/win" to me. Owner's save a buck, and
airport displays attract local and fly-in visitors.

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > writes:
>
> > The real scam in CA is that NONE of the personal property taxes go
> > towards supporting the aviation infrastructure!
> >
> > It all goes into the General Fund -- then the pols claim that GA
> > "doesn't support itself and wants to tap the General Fund."
>
> Why should only aircraft personal property taxes be used for only
> aviation? Car property taxes aren't used just for roads, they go into
> the general fund.

That is part of the problem! The pols like to drink the milk, but they
don't want to take care of the cow!

To add insult to injury, airplane-generated taxes exceed the fees
collected for airports, with NONE of the taxes returning to airports.
Then the pols claim that we "aren't paying our 'fair share'"!

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stu Gotts wrote:
> >
> > They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow it
> > to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific.
>
> No, just the southern part.

When the San Andreas cuts loose the problem will be solved.

Except in Nevada County CA. When I was on the Board, I did a little math
exercise to show just how many transient pilots stayed in our local ho/motels.
I then did a little political arabesque during the budget hearings to get our
airport exactly that percentage of the TOT (transient occupancy tax). That
legislation has been in effect for over twenty years now and our airport budget
has been well in the black for all that time. Our hangar ground rentals are $40
a month. Anybody in a suburban area ready to top that?

Again I tell you...AGAIN I TELL YOU...play the political game to the point of
running for office or stand on the sidelines and bitch about it. Your choice.

We all had a great laugh at Jim running for governor. Jim is a community
college professor in his real life, and Jim pointed out in the state and
national media during the race how the community colleges in California are
taking it in the shorts.

Guess what? The GOOBERNATOR'S budget is kindlier to the community colleges than
any governor's budget in the last 40 years. Coincidence? I think not.

Politics, folks, it's aaaaaaaaall politics.

Jim



Orval Fairbairn >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->To add insult to injury, airplane-generated taxes exceed the fees
->collected for airports, with NONE of the taxes returning to airports.
->Then the pols claim that we "aren't paying our 'fair share'"!



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

<snip>
:> Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
:> sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

: Seems hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it. However, the
: above discussion is about annual personal property tax, NOT one-time
: sales or use tax.

Yup, you can believe it. No sales/use tax on purchase of aircraft, parts,
repairs, etc, etc. The only state fee left is annual "registration", which
runs about $250 based on gross weight, class, and engine type (turbine or
piston). The fee goes higher for larger aircraft than your typical 172.

--
Aaron Coolidge

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:26 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
>"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Stu Gotts wrote:
>> >
>> > They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow it
>> > to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific.
>>
>> No, just the southern part.
>
>When the San Andreas cuts loose the problem will be solved.
>

Well.... not to nitpick, but... since the San Andreas Fault is a strike slip
fault, eventually, the western half of the San Francisco peninsula will be west
of Seattle and offshore. Los Angles will be where the Western half of SF is
now. Look out G.R., here we come! ;-)

Ron Kelley

"Gary Lee" > wrote in message . net>...
> Well lets look at the "scam" I'm running. I have a 1948 Emigh Trojan, one
> of 59 built and one of seven left,

Wow, that is a cool little plane. I haven't seen one in years. As
I recall, they look kinda like an Ercoupe with a straight tail and
corrugated wings. Once you've seen one, you'll never forget it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)