Re: RI tax madness

[Peter Gottlieb]

I'd like to find out more about this. Do you have a reference to an
official article?


"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
>
>

[Roger Long]

See the current Avweb.com. AOPA and the FBO I spoke to in RI both confirmed
that it is essentially accurate. The AOPA representative says they are hard
on it and something should appear on their site today or tomorrow.

--
Roger Long
Peter Gottlieb > wrote in message
...
> I'd like to find out more about this. Do you have a reference to an
> official article?
>
>
> "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
> >
> >
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island based pilot,
I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time today trying to find
the legislation that enacts this, and so far have not found it. If you have a
bill or resolution number, I could use that when I call my rep to bitch about
it. We did have a bill in the legislature to repeal sales and use taxes on
aircraft related matters here in the state to help encourage business. This
news is diametrically opposed to what had been proposed in the bill earlier this
year.

Roger Long wrote:

> See the current Avweb.com. AOPA and the FBO I spoke to in RI both confirmed
> that it is essentially accurate. The AOPA representative says they are hard
> on it and something should appear on their site today or tomorrow.
>
> --
> Roger Long
> Peter Gottlieb > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'd like to find out more about this. Do you have a reference to an
> > official article?
> >
> >
> > "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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:08:31 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:

>I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island based pilot,
>I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time today trying to find
>the legislation that enacts this, and so far have not found it. If you have a
>bill or resolution number, I could use that when I call my rep to bitch about
>it. We did have a bill in the legislature to repeal sales and use taxes on
>aircraft related matters here in the state to help encourage business. This
>news is diametrically opposed to what had been proposed in the bill earlier this
>year.

http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/released/pdf/DOTAX/DOTAX_2510.pdf


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron McKinnon]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:08:31 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:
> >
> > >I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island
> > >based pilot, I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time
> > >today trying to find the legislation that enacts this, and so far have
> not
> > >found it. If you have a bill or resolution number, I could use that
when
> > >I call my rep to bitch about it. We did have a bill in the legislature
> to
> > >repeal sales and use taxes on aircraft related matters here in the
state
> > >to help encourage business. This news is diametrically opposed to
> > >what had been proposed in the bill earlier this year.
> >
> > http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/released/pdf/DOTAX/DOTAX_2510.pdf
>
> Interesting. This document raises a number of questions in my mind, such
> as:
>
> This document specifies the effective date as April 02, 2003. Has this
> been in force since then? If so, why are we just aware of it now?, and if
> not, can the state impose a new tax retroactively? (It would seem
> to be unconstitutional, US Constitution, article 9 ..."No bill of
attainder
> or ex post facto law shall be passed.")
>
> I'm also thinking that charging the tax on aircraft relocated to RI,
> from some other state, is effectively a 'tax or duty laid on articles
> exported from another state', which would also seem to be
> denied by the US Constitution (article 9, also).
>
> What is the 'emergency' justification? Is this justification
> within the purview of Tax Administrator?
>
> What legal/public process is required in order to cause such a
regulation
> to come into effect? Did this occur? Can a new tax be imposed without
> legislative or public input? What kind of notice period is required for
> such a new tax? Or is that the 'emergency' - an end-run around the
> nuisance of a public process?
>

Oops. References here to 'article 9' should have been article 1, section 9
....

[Ray Andraka]

The "emergency" is an end run. It comes up to the legislature in October. I
wrote this letter to the providence journal:

This is why businesses don't want to be in Rhode Island

Rhode Island's Division of Taxation recently put into effect an "emergency
regulation" that states that if a "non-commercial" (business or private)
aircraft flies between two points in the state, stays overnight, or lands here
more than three times in one month, the aircraft is subject to a use tax equal
to 7% of the aircraft's value. The motivation is apparently to reap a tax
windfall from business aircraft using Quonset, Westerly and Green Airports, as
these aircraft are typically worth several million dollars. The regulation also
snares private aircraft bringing tourism dollars into Block Island and Newport
(each of these airports has hundreds of out of state arrivals each month).
Rather than providing the intended effect, the regulation causes pilots and
businesses to avoid Rhode Island rather than risk a substantial lien. One pilot
on the Cherokee Pilot's Association Chat sums it up saying: "If I had to go
there, I'd fly to CT, rent a car, do my business in RI without even refueling,
and send the rulers of RI a receipt for the money they contributed to CT" rather
than risking a substantial lien. Once again, the state is chasing away business
that would generate far more taxes than the meager collections that will result
from this ill-conceived regulation. When are our leaders going to wake up and
realize that the reason companies are not locating here is because it is far too
expensive to do business here?


Ron McKinnon wrote:

> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:08:31 -0400, Ray Andraka > wrote:
> >
> > >I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island
> > >based pilot, I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time
> > >today trying to find the legislation that enacts this, and so far have
> not
> > >found it. If you have a bill or resolution number, I could use that when
> > >I call my rep to bitch about it. We did have a bill in the legislature
> to
> > >repeal sales and use taxes on aircraft related matters here in the state
> > >to help encourage business. This news is diametrically opposed to
> > >what had been proposed in the bill earlier this year.
> >
> > http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/released/pdf/DOTAX/DOTAX_2510.pdf
>
> Interesting. This document raises a number of questions in my mind, such
> as:
>
> This document specifies the effective date as April 02, 2003. Has this
> been in force since then? If so, why are we just aware of it now?, and if
> not, can the state impose a new tax retroactively? (It would seem
> to be unconstitutional, US Constitution, article 9 ..."No bill of attainder
> or ex post facto law shall be passed.")
>
> I'm also thinking that charging the tax on aircraft relocated to RI,
> from some other state, is effectively a 'tax or duty laid on articles
> exported from another state', which would also seem to be
> denied by the US Constitution (article 9, also).
>
> What is the 'emergency' justification? Is this justification
> within the purview of Tax Administrator?
>
> What legal/public process is required in order to cause such a regulation
> to come into effect? Did this occur? Can a new tax be imposed without
> legislative or public input? What kind of notice period is required for
> such a new tax? Or is that the 'emergency' - an end-run around the
> nuisance of a public process?

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote in message news:rOt3b.865093
>
> This document specifies the effective date as April 02, 2003. Has this
> been in force since then? If so, why are we just aware of it now?,

I assume the tax department just interpretted the existing law to apply to
this category of use that they hadn't previously been enforcing.