California Based Aircraft in Excess of 35 Years Old Exempt from Property Tax!

[Larry Dighera]

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 ).

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

[Gary L]

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 ).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bob Fry]

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 ).
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Orval Fairbairn]

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."

[Bob Fry]

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.

[Tara]

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.

[Gary Lee]

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 ).
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Tara >
wrote:

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

did that really happen?

--
Bob Noel

[Stu Gotts]

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.

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[Jürgen Exner]

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

[Bob Fry]

"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.

[Bob Fry]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Orval Fairbairn]

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'"!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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.

[Jim Weir]

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

[Aaron Coolidge]

<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

[John Galban]

"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)