FAA Fees

[Ian]

Just a query.. What are the licence fees are in the US? For general
aviation private flying. Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) has extended its user pays system . Its a good gouging A$130 to
CASA to click a button and post out a class 2 medical renewal.That's on
top of the doctors charge for examination. Would not mind that much if
charge bore some relation to actual service.
There is a whole new list at http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/fees/fees.htm
announced just before Christmas.. nice timing by the bunch of
fornicating mendacious illegitimates (or words to the effect of)that,
govern err sorry rule, down here.

[Sylvain]

Ian wrote:
> Just a query.. What are the licence fees are in the US?

I reckon the worst I had to pay was two whole dollars
to replace my old format certificate (that's what they
call licenses over here) into the new shiny plastic one
with the hologram on it (I believe it included postage);
but it was not compulsory I believe, i.e., I could
have kept the old one, but the new ones look so cool...

--Sylvain

[Robert M. Gary]

Its charged with aviation fuel. I'm not sure the actual amount.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

Income taxes, fuel fees, some airport have landing, tie-down
and other fees. But at the Federal level, so far, most
services are paid from fuel and income taxes, as money is
appropriated by Congress.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Its charged with aviation fuel. I'm not sure the actual
amount.
|
| -Robert
|

[Sylvain]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Income taxes, fuel fees, some airport have landing, tie-down
> and other fees. But at the Federal level, so far, most
> services are paid from fuel and income taxes, as money is
> appropriated by Congress.

same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);

--Sylvain

[Chris]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Income taxes, fuel fees, some airport have landing, tie-down and other
>> fees. But at the Federal level, so far, most services are paid from fuel
>> and income taxes, as money is appropriated by Congress.
>
> same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
> a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
> same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
> additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
> I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);

Our CAA has to be self funding therefore the costs are recovered from the
users. A good example being that it costs me £16 to ask the CAA to verify my
licence particulars to the FAA who then issue me with a nice plastic
certificate for free.
I like your way but I don't think it is sustainable in the long term. User
fees are inevitable despite what AOPA think.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:
> same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
> a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
> same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
> additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
> I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);


Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea, but the risk is that
the user fees will come and the taxes will not disappear. The net
effect is that the politicians create another revenue stream under the
guise of "enhancing safety," "creating better service," etc.



JKG

[Chris]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Sylvain > wrote:
>> same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
>> a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
>> same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
>> additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
>> I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);
>
>
> Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea, but the risk is that
> the user fees will come and the taxes will not disappear. The net
> effect is that the politicians create another revenue stream under the
> guise of "enhancing safety," "creating better service," etc.

two things in life are certain, death and taxes

[RST Engineering]

Thank you, Benjamin Franklin.

Jim




"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> two things in life are certain, death and taxes
>

[Michael Ware]

Like getting 'protective paint sealant' on a new car. You don't need it, and
you won't really get anything for the money. But if you are not careful,
you'll pay for it.

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea, but the risk is that
> the user fees will come and the taxes will not disappear. The net
> effect is that the politicians create another revenue stream under the
> guise of "enhancing safety," "creating better service," etc.
>
> JKG

[Newps]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

>
>
> Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea,

It's only a good idea if the funding is stable. Nowhere that has user
fees has a stable revenue stream. It varies widely from year to year.
Trying prying millions of dollars from a bankrupt airline for their ATC
payment. Canada has had these problems for years.

[Chris]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Sylvain > wrote:
>> same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
>> a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
>> same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
>> additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
>> I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);
>
>
> Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea, but the risk is that
> the user fees will come and the taxes will not disappear. The net
> effect is that the politicians create another revenue stream under the
> guise of "enhancing safety," "creating better service," etc.

Funding ATC is not where it stops either. Have a look at this publication
and look at the charges here. from page 10 of the pamphlet.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/aviation/services/GetMET_2006.pdf

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ewfyf.487275$084.453368@attbi_s22...
>> Our CAA has to be self funding therefore the costs are recovered from the
>> users. A good example being that it costs me £16 to ask the CAA to verify
>> my licence particulars to the FAA who then issue me with a nice plastic
>> certificate for free.
>> I like your way but I don't think it is sustainable in the long term.
>> User fees are inevitable despite what AOPA think.
>
> That's insane.
>
> User fees require an entirely new bureaucracy to collect the money (which,
> of course, is the REAL reason the government-types want them). If more
> money is needed to pay for the FAA (a concept which is ridiculous in
> itself, but I digress), higher fuel taxes can and will pay for the
> shortfall efficiently and quickly.

Forget being efficient, that's what normal people want to do, governments do
otherwise look at Homeland Security and the TSA.

As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get the
benefit of. I am eternally grateful to the US taxpayer (sincerely) for the
benefit I get and I hope the money I have spent during my 4 trips and 9
weeks to the US since September 2004 have gone some way to repaying the
debt.

[Sylvain]

Chris wrote:
> As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get the
> benefit of.

maybe for the same reasons why I have to pay for, say, schools (I
don't have kids why should I care?), public transportation that I
won't use, roads upon which I won't drive, etc.

besides, if they ever bring users' fee, it is safe to bet that
they won't remove fuel taxes, so we'll end up paying for the same
thing twice (or more);

--Sylvain

[George Patterson]

Chris wrote:

> As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get the
> benefit of.

I think you misunderstood Jay. The fuel taxes of which he speaks are special
taxes on aviation fuel. The ordinary taxpayer doesn't pay these. These and
tarifs on airline tickets are the main funding for aviation-related expenses for
the U.S. government.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[john smith]

> User fees require an entirely new bureaucracy to collect the money (which,
> of course, is the REAL reason the government-types want them). If more
> money is needed to pay for the FAA (a concept which is ridiculous in itself,
> but I digress), higher fuel taxes can and will pay for the shortfall
> efficiently and quickly.

Oregon tried that 20 years ago to fund their state aviation programs.
People stopped flying as often so the revenue stream declined.
The programs still had to be funded so the state went back to the old
way of doing things.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea,
>
> It's only a good idea if the funding is stable. Nowhere that has user
> fees has a stable revenue stream. It varies widely from year to year.
> Trying prying millions of dollars from a bankrupt airline for their ATC
> payment. Canada has had these problems for years.


This wouldn't be a problem if the bankrupt airlines would go under and
stop flying. While this sounds sinister, new competitors would enter
the market and provide greater stability--a much better situation than
government subsidizing these loser carriers.

However, employment stability in the private ATC system wouldn't be a
sure thing. Pension? What pension? Welcome to the real world.



JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get
> the benefit of. I am eternally grateful to the US taxpayer (sincerely) for
> the benefit I get and I hope the money I have spent during my 4 trips and
> 9 weeks to the US since September 2004 have gone some way to repaying the
> debt.

D'oh. The aviation fuel tax IS a "user fee" on aviation.

That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to
understand that our existing fuel tax is *the* most efficient user fee one
could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems,
no extra infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA
shortfall".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Lee]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>D'oh. The aviation fuel tax IS a "user fee" on aviation.
>
>That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to
>understand that our existing fuel tax is *the* most efficient user fee one
>could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems,
>no extra infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA
>shortfall".
>--
>Jay Honeck

Not only that but it is relatively fair. If you fly a lot
(potentially using a lot of services) then you pay more than someone
who flies less.

Hmm, I should then pay less in school taxes.

Ron Lee

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:0Njyf.487969$084.179646@attbi_s22...
debt.
>
> D'oh. The aviation fuel tax IS a "user fee" on aviation.
>
> That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to understand that our existing fuel tax is
> *the* most efficient user fee one could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems, no extra
> infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA shortfall".
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

So, Jay, how much aviation fuel tax did you pay last year?

[Ian]

Thanks all .. got the picture..
Oz used to have a fuel levy, then it was cut and user pays introduced.
Fuel did drop for about 6mths then went even higher when excise tax
applied..(Federal Gov grabs circa 40% of fuel price then there is GST
Tax, State charges etc got the picture)
Lets not mention the efficiency of collecting piddling little amounts of
landing fees..
Lesson there somewhere

[Newps]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea,
>>
>>It's only a good idea if the funding is stable. Nowhere that has user
>>fees has a stable revenue stream. It varies widely from year to year.
>>Trying prying millions of dollars from a bankrupt airline for their ATC
>>payment. Canada has had these problems for years.
>
>
>
> This wouldn't be a problem if the bankrupt airlines would go under and
> stop flying. While this sounds sinister, new competitors would enter
> the market and provide greater stability--a much better situation than
> government subsidizing these loser carriers.
>
> However, employment stability in the private ATC system wouldn't be a
> sure thing. Pension? What pension? Welcome to the real world.

We weren't talking about a private ATC system, just privatizing the
source of the funding. Nobody is talking about taking ATC out of the
government, that clearly doesn't work.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to
> understand that our existing fuel tax is *the* most efficient user fee one
> could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems,
> no extra infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA
> shortfall".

Yeah. All we need to do now is make it illegal for aircraft owners to haul in
gas from outside.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jay Honeck]

> So, Jay, how much aviation fuel tax did you pay last year?

Not sure. Probably more than most, though, since every time we leave Iowa
City (which we do a LOT), we are stuck buying that crappy Avgas.

The real question is why more airports don't sell car gas -- with the av-tax
added.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> The real question is why more airports don't sell car gas -- with the av-tax
> added.

I asked that question at 47N when the management changed and they were deciding
what fuels to offer. They polled the aircraft owners and determined that not
enough people would buy it if they did. Most of the people who had mogas STCs
would have continued to haul their own gas in to save money.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Bottom line: If my airport sold unleaded gasoline, I wouldn't need to haul
> the damned stuff in.

And I believe you wouldn't have built the grape if unleaded had been available
then and there.

But now that you have that big tank in a pickup truck, you can't expect us to
believe that you'd start paying avgas prices for mogas on the field. Decent fuel
needs to be made available *and* owners must be banned from hauling gas in from
outside to avoid the taxes.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jay Honeck]

> And I believe you wouldn't have built the grape if unleaded had been
> available then and there.
>
> But now that you have that big tank in a pickup truck, you can't expect us
> to believe that you'd start paying avgas prices for mogas on the field.
> Decent fuel needs to be made available *and* owners must be banned from
> hauling gas in from outside to avoid the taxes.

Agreed. The Mighty Grape will one day wear out -- it's got 125K on it, but
still running great -- and I can only hope that I won't have to spend
thousands to replace it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Agreed. The Mighty Grape will one day wear out -- it's got 125K on it, but
> still running great -- and I can only hope that I won't have to spend
> thousands to replace it.

I've got 170,000 on mine, but it has a few problems. I'm in the process of
checking to see if it's better to fix them or buy a new one. The latter is
complicated by the fact that the sort of truck I want isn't common in this area,
so I would have to shop several hundred miles away.

Anyway, you've probably got a way to go yet.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>> Income taxes, fuel fees, some airport have landing, tie-down and other
>>> fees. But at the Federal level, so far, most services are paid from
>>> fuel and income taxes, as money is appropriated by Congress.
>>
>> same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
>> a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
>> same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
>> additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
>> I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);
>
> Our CAA has to be self funding therefore the costs are recovered from the
> users. A good example being that it costs me £16 to ask the CAA to verify
> my licence particulars to the FAA who then issue me with a nice plastic
> certificate for free.
> I like your way but I don't think it is sustainable in the long term. User
> fees are inevitable despite what AOPA think.
>

We have USER FEES NOW. They are in the fuel tax. Our roads are done the same
way. Works quite well and is fair because it is a pretty safe bet that the
people using more fuel are probably using more services. If they need to
increase revenue they should just increase the amount of the tax.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yoEyf.708533$_o.236451@attbi_s71...
>> So, Jay, how much aviation fuel tax did you pay last year?
>
> Not sure. Probably more than most, though, since every time we leave Iowa
> City (which we do a LOT), we are stuck buying that crappy Avgas.
>
> The real question is why more airports don't sell car gas -- with the
> av-tax added.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Let's do the math.


(Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92

[George Patterson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Let's do the math.
>
> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92

With Jay, it's not that simple. Jay hauls car gas out to the airport and fuels
from his own tank when possible. The only time he pays the avgas taxes is when
he fuels up away from home. That's why he's not sure.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Newps]

George Patterson wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Let's do the math.
>>
>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92
>
>
> With Jay, it's not that simple. Jay hauls car gas out to the airport and
> fuels from his own tank when possible. The only time he pays the avgas
> taxes is when he fuels up away from home. That's why he's not sure.

He's paying road tax for fuel not used on the road. Which is more, the
aviation tax or the road tax?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:27 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>He's paying road tax for fuel not used on the road. Which is more, the
>aviation tax or the road tax?

But it is possible for him to claim a refund for the mogas tax.

[Jose]

> But it is possible for him to claim a refund for the mogas tax.

.... and if he does, then it's a simple matter to subtract that gas from
his total gas (calculated from hours) and arrive at the desired figure.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Newps wrote:

> He's paying road tax for fuel not used on the road.

So? The discussion is about user fees paying for aviation being embedded in the
aviation fuel tax. Which auto fuel users are evading.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:_bQyf.9534$6L1.1197@trnddc02...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Let's do the math.
>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92
>
> With Jay, it's not that simple. Jay hauls car gas out to the airport and
> fuels from his own tank when possible. The only time he pays the avgas
> taxes is when he fuels up away from home. That's why he's not sure.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

Well he is sucking the public tit and should make a donation the FAA in an
amount equal to what the tax would have been less the FED tax on the motor
gas.

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:49:32 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"George Patterson" > wrote in message
>news:_bQyf.9534$6L1.1197@trnddc02...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> Let's do the math.
>>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92
>>
>> With Jay, it's not that simple. Jay hauls car gas out to the airport and
>> fuels from his own tank when possible. The only time he pays the avgas
>> taxes is when he fuels up away from home. That's why he's not sure.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
>> your slightly older self.
>
>Well he is sucking the public tit and should make a donation the FAA in an
>amount equal to what the tax would have been less the FED tax on the motor
>gas.

Well then people who use the mixture control are cheating the
government too. Everyone should to run the mixture full rich all the
time in order to maximize the total taxes paid. Flying at reduced
power is also bad. And anyone who doesn't fly a large twin is just a
greedy Republican who should burn in hell for not paying taxes.

Bob Henry

[Newps]

Not the federal tax but there are a very few states that allow the state
tax to be recovered.



Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:27 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>He's paying road tax for fuel not used on the road. Which is more, the
>>aviation tax or the road tax?
>
>
> But it is possible for him to claim a refund for the mogas tax.
>

[Skylune]

>>
As toby "Chris" > Jan 15, 2006 at 01:22 AM

I am eternally grateful to the US taxpayer (sincerely) for the

benefit I get and I hope the money I have spent during my 4 trips and 9
weeks to the US since September 2004 have gone some way to repaying the
debt.<<

You're quite welcome. I hope you enjoyed the (almost) free ride. But the
debt has increased, and the Aviation Trust Fund is going broke.

The subsidies that you enjoyed will not last long, as user fees or
increased AV gas taxes are
an inevitibility. Even the nefarious AOPA has stated that increased fuel
taxes are a better alternative than user fees. Hopefully, the congress
will see fit to enact both: higher taxes on AVgas as well as user fees
to
cover the free services that GA fliers avail themselves of at the
taxpayers' expense.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:49:32 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Patterson" > wrote in message
>>news:_bQyf.9534$6L1.1197@trnddc02...
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's do the math.
>>>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92
>>>
>>> With Jay, it's not that simple. Jay hauls car gas out to the airport and
>>> fuels from his own tank when possible. The only time he pays the avgas
>>> taxes is when he fuels up away from home. That's why he's not sure.
>>>
>>> George Patterson
>>> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong
>>> to
>>> your slightly older self.
>>
>>Well he is sucking the public tit and should make a donation the FAA in an
>>amount equal to what the tax would have been less the FED tax on the motor
>>gas.
>
> Well then people who use the mixture control are cheating the
> government too. Everyone should to run the mixture full rich all the
> time in order to maximize the total taxes paid. Flying at reduced
> power is also bad. And anyone who doesn't fly a large twin is just a
> greedy Republican who should burn in hell for not paying taxes.
>

The two situations do not compare at all.

If I use what they call around here Farm Fuel (Same gas no road tax
applied)in my car and drive it on the highway I'm committing a crime. I
think there should be some way for those that use mogas to pay the $0.92
that the avgas users pay.

[George Patterson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> I
> think there should be some way for those that use mogas to pay the $0.92
> that the avgas users pay.

That would take some ammo out of the FLAK of the "user fee" crowd.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Skylune]

> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Let's do the math.
>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92<<

Did you arrive at an answer yet? When you do, make sure to divide the
resulting $ figure by 4.76, because federal av gas tax is 19.3 cents per
gallon.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:46:02 -0500, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>... the free services that GA fliers avail themselves of at the
>taxpayers' expense.

And what of the free FAA services the airlines avail themselves of for
the benefit of the general population of airline passengers? Singling
out GA, when the whole nation benefits from the NAS, reveals your
self-serving agenda.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> Let's do the math.
>>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92<<
>
> Did you arrive at an answer yet? When you do, make sure to divide the
> resulting $ figure by 4.76, because federal av gas tax is 19.3 cents per
> gallon.
>

Actually it is 19.4 cent per gal. I have no ideas why I typed .92.

[.Blueskies.]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:_bQyf.9534$6L1.1197@trnddc02...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Let's do the math.
>> (Hours flown * Gal/Hr)*0.92
>
> With Jay, it's not that simple. Jay hauls car gas out to the airport and fuels from his own tank when possible. The
> only time he pays the avgas taxes is when he fuels up away from home. That's why he's not sure.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.
>

Yup. he is paying the road tax to keep the freeways in good shape...

;-)

[Morgans]

".Blueskies." > wrote

> Yup. he is paying the road tax to keep the freeways in good shape...

Farmers can apply (I think this is how it works) to get the highway tax
money refunded. Could he not, do that, and then pay those taxes along with
the difference in aviation taxes, back to the feds?
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> Farmers can apply (I think this is how it works) to get the highway tax
> money refunded. Could he not, do that, and then pay those taxes along
> with the difference in aviation taxes, back to the feds?

Some States will refund taxes paid for non-highway use of road fuel. I could
never figure out how to get such a refund from New Jersey back when I had my
150, and I don't know if Iowa issues such a refund.

As far as paying the funds into the aviation trust fund goes, the Feds will be
happy to take a non-specific contribution into the general fund, but you can't
target the destination like that. We've explored this avenue for contributions
to the NPS and hit a stone wall there.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.