It's over was: RI tax madness

[Roger Long]

RI appears to be back pedaling fast. The state sent a letter to AOPA today
saying that it was clumsy wording and the provision was never intended to
apply to residents of other states.

It was intended to "help" state residents by letting them buy an airplane
that the kept and used out of state without having to pay the 7% state use
tax until they brought it in to the state and used it as described.

--
Roger Long
Roger Long m> wrote in
message ...
> Say, this really looks to be for real. AOPA just advised me not to stay
> overnight in RI or fly between airports until it blows over. I'm planning
> on emailing the following to some of the FBO's to give them some
ammunition
> in getting it overturned. Other northeast pilots might want to do
something
> similar.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------------------
>
> Thank you for taking time to discuss the emergency tax regulation. I will
> be informing our 25 club members that flights to RI in club aircraft are
> prohibited until this matter is resolved. Although I understand that the
> provision only applies to overnight stopovers or flights between RI
> airports, I would not want a member faced with the choice between assuming
> an economic liability equal to 7% of the aircraft's cost and taking off in
> poor weather or with a mechanical problem. I also would not want their
> choice of an emergency diversion airport effected by knowledge of this
> provision.
>
> I am confident that this tax provision will eventually be overturned by
the
> courts, even if common sense does not prevail. In the meantime, we would
be
> required to carry any tax judgement as a liability on our books which
would
> impair our ability to borrow money or sell the aircraft. We could also be
> exposed to legal costs defending against any action by the state to
collect.
>
> I look forward to a successful resolution of this matter so that we, and
> other GA pilots, will again feel free to fly to RI and spend our dollars
in
> your state.
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Todd Pattist]

Ray Andraka > wrote:

>What it is really targeted at is businesses who are basing their corporate
>aircraft in neighboring states because RI is the only state in the region that
>charges a sales or use tax on aircraft, aircraft maintenance and repairs.

Connecticut will send you a sales/use tax bill as soon as
you register your aircraft with the FAA and list a CT
residence.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[rip]

Damn right they will. That's why you put "$1 and OVC" (other valuable
considerations) on the sales receipt when you buy an aircraft, rather
than the purchase price. Book value is negotiable, a receipt is not.

Todd Pattist wrote:
> Connecticut will send you a sales/use tax bill as soon as
> you register your aircraft with the FAA and list a CT
> residence.
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[Todd Pattist]

rip > wrote:

>> Connecticut will send you a sales/use tax bill as soon as
>> you register your aircraft with the FAA and list a CT
>> residence.
>Damn right they will. That's why you put "$1 and OVC" (other valuable
>considerations) on the sales receipt when you buy an aircraft, rather
>than the purchase price. Book value is negotiable, a receipt is not.

I know several people who respond to the sales/use tax bill
by notifying the CT tax man that they didn't buy it in CT,
they don't hangar it in CT and they don't fly it in CT. The
tax man goeth away (reluctantly).
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"rip" > wrote in message
m...
> Damn right they will. That's why you put "$1 and OVC" (other valuable
> considerations) on the sales receipt when you buy an aircraft, rather
> than the purchase price. Book value is negotiable, a receipt is not.

I don't know the CT laws, but I suspect they are similar to WA. In WA, if
the purchase price is obviously artificially low, they use an estimate of
retail value instead of purchase price for the purpose of calculating the
tax.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> I know several people who respond to the sales/use tax bill
> by notifying the CT tax man that they didn't buy it in CT,
> they don't hangar it in CT and they don't fly it in CT. The
> tax man goeth away (reluctantly).

Are those people telling the truth? If not, they may well find that the tax
man eventually gets around to coming back. I sure hope he does.

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>So, because there are a lot of expenses involved in aviation, it's okay to
>break the law?

No. I thought I made it clear that they acted within the
law. In fact the CT law is stricter than the RI law being
discussed, and they had to fit within those tighter
restrictions. I simply think it goes too far to assume a
violation and wish a visit by a tax man on a fellow pilot.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> >So, because there are a lot of expenses involved in aviation, it's okay
to
> >break the law?
>
> No. I thought I made it clear that they acted within the
> law.

My comment was specifically addressed in regards to a person who is lying
when they answer the tax man. If what you say is true, then those comments
don't apply to the people you're talking about. You are taking offense on
their behalf for no reason.

> [...] I simply think it goes too far to assume a
> violation and wish a visit by a tax man on a fellow pilot.

I simply think it goes too far to assume a comment was directed at a person
that the comment specifically excluded.

But even if I wished a visit by a tax man on the people you're talking
about, so what? According to you, they have nothing to hide, and have
broken no laws. They should breeze right through the audit.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

>No. I thought I made it clear that they acted within the
>law. In fact the CT law is stricter than the RI law being
>discussed, and they had to fit within those tighter
>restrictions

Tax avoidance (like draft avoidance) is not illegal. Indeed, I believe
the IRS still includes a statement in the front of its 1040
instruction booklet (I haven't used one in years) reminding people
that they don't have to pay any more taxes than--well, than they have
to pay!

I don't know about other states, but I've found the tax authorities in
New Hampshire to be especially helpful and forthcoming. (Perhaps this
is because the New Hampshire tax system is based on the principal that
taxes and fees are something that the folks from Massachusetts should
pay.) It's good that this is so, because the New Hampshire tax forms
are mysteriously opaque. Indeed, the Interest and Dividends tax form
once got into The New Yorker for its instruction, on Page One: "Do Not
Begin With This Page".


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>> [...] I simply think it goes too far to assume a
>> violation and wish a visit by a tax man on a fellow pilot.
>
>I simply think it goes too far to assume a comment was directed at a person
>that the comment specifically excluded.

I gave a list of reasons why they didn't have to pay taxes
on their aircraft. You took that list, and without any
basis, questioned the pilots' veracity, then wished the tax
man on them.

The list I gave was for comparison with the RI law.
Although this thread started as an attack on the R.I law,
when you realize that their law excludes non-residents, and
then compare to the CT law, you see that RI is actually
easier on its residents, as they can still fly into their
home state without triggering the use tax.

>But even if I wished a visit by a tax man on the people you're talking
>about, so what? According to you, they have nothing to hide, and have
>broken no laws. They should breeze right through the audit.

Sounds like you've never dealt with the tax man before.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> [...] You took that list, and without any
> basis, questioned the pilots' veracity, then wished the tax
> man on them.

That's simply not true. You need to go back and actually *read* what I
wrote.

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>>You [...] took that list, and without any
>> basis, questioned the pilots' veracity, then wished the tax
>> man on them.
>
>That's simply not true. You need to go back and actually *read* what I
>wrote.

Your first line was: "Are those people telling the truth?"
which is questioning their veracity without any basis to do
so.

Then you wrote: "If not, they may well find that the taxman
eventually gets around to coming back. I sure hope he
does." Since the tax man has no way to tell whether it's
true *except* by coming back, and your "hope he does" come
back wasn't qualified, you seemed to be wishing the tax man
on them.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> Your first line was: "Are those people telling the truth?"
> which is questioning their veracity without any basis to do
> so.

What basis do I need to ask a question? You're just being silly.

> Then you wrote: "If not, they may well find that the taxman
> eventually gets around to coming back. I sure hope he
> does." Since the tax man has no way to tell whether it's
> true *except* by coming back, and your "hope he does" come
> back wasn't qualified, you seemed to be wishing the tax man
> on them.

My "hope he does" certainly was qualified. All you have to do is look at
the paragraph in which it's found. That paragraph clearly begins with "If
not", which you even quoted. Certainly the tax man's ability to find the
truth one way or the other has NO relevance to my own statements.

Pete

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>> Your first line was: "Are those people telling the truth?"
>> which is questioning their veracity without any basis to do
>> so.
>What basis do I need to ask a question?

None. But then you can't claim you had any basis for asking
it.

>> Then you wrote: "If not, they may well find that the taxman
>> eventually gets around to coming back. I sure hope he
>> does." Since the tax man has no way to tell whether it's
>> true *except* by coming back, and your "hope he does" come
>> back wasn't qualified, you seemed to be wishing the tax man
>> on them.

>My "hope he does" certainly was qualified. All you have to do is look at
>the paragraph in which it's found. That paragraph clearly begins with "If
>not", which you even quoted.

I quoted it to be fair to you. It qualifies the possibility
that the tax man will come around, not your hope that he
does. I said it "seemed" to be wishing the tax man on them.
If you say you don't wish the tax man to show up and make
the life of some fellow pilots more expensive and difficult,
I'll take you at your word, but that's not how I interpreted
it. They are friends of mine and shouldn't be suspected of
tax evasion by you or the CT Dept. of Revenue.

I agree with you that pilots, like everyone else, should pay
taxes they owe, but I don't think they should pay any taxes
they don't owe and I don't think they should be suspected of
it. In fact, in the situations we are discussing, the
pilots were not even engaged in a legitimate "tax avoidance"
strategy. They simply happened to keep their aircraft out
of state for reasons completely unrelated to taxes, and I
advised them of the fact that under CT law, they owed no
sales/use tax.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> >What basis do I need to ask a question?
>
> None. But then you can't claim you had any basis for asking
> it.

So what? Do you actually have a point? What does it matter whether I can
or cannot claim I had any basis for asking a question?

Here's a clue for you: people ask questions to fill in areas of information
they don't already have. Since I don't know your friends, I have no idea
whether they were telling the truth or not.

Quit being so easily offended. It really looks ridiculous.

> I quoted it to be fair to you. It qualifies the possibility
> that the tax man will come around, not your hope that he
> does.

You presume to tell ME what MY own words mean? Please, get off your high
horse. The entire paragraph was qualified. The presence of a period does
not mean you can just forget everything that has been written so far.

Pete

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>Quit being so easily offended.

I'm not offended - you've made it clear you did not wish the
tax man on them.

>> I quoted it to be fair to you. It qualifies the possibility
>> that the tax man will come around, not your hope that he
>> does.
>
>You presume to tell ME what MY own words mean?

No I told you what they "seemed" to mean. Who is being
offended here? :-)


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> >You presume to tell ME what MY own words mean?
>
> No

No? Yes:

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> I quoted it to be fair to you. It qualifies the possibility
> that the tax man will come around, not your hope that he
> does.

You are arbitrarily and incorrectly misinterpreting the qualification in my
original statement.

Pete

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>> >You presume to tell ME what MY own words mean?
>>
>> No
>
>No? Yes:

No I told you how I understood them and why. I objected to
your immediate questioning of my friends' truthfulness and
perhaps let that color my interpretation of your words.
This sort of thing can happen with communication that is
devoid of associated clues in body language, and tone of
voice.

>You are arbitrarily and incorrectly misinterpreting the qualification in my
>original statement.

Interpreting your words is what I meant when I said I was
telling you what they "seemed" to mean. I'll accept that
you meant the qualification in the first sentence to apply
to your tax-man visit wish in the following sentence and you
should try to accept that I understood it otherwise in light
of the challenge to their veracity. You can object to my
interpretation, but it's what it was regardless of
objection.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>Then you should consider that, rather than having written "It qualifies",
>you should have written "It seems to qualify".

The phrase "If not" (referring to truthfulness) was part of
the first sentence (suggesting the tax man might visit) and
not the second (hoping that he *does*visit). Thus the
qualifying phrase was not part of the second sentence.
That's a fact. The interpretation of that fact is where we
differed, and with respect to that interpretation I *did*
use the word "seemed."

Your turn?
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.