personal property tax on homebuilt aircraft

[Stu Fields]

Jim Weir: I believe that you made reference to an exemption from personal
property tax assessment on the basis of less than 5 aircraft of a specific
model being made? Can you provide a reference to the tax code where that
is defined? (I hope that this applies to California??)

Stu Fields

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Stu Fields" > wrote:

> Jim Weir: I believe that you made reference to an exemption from personal
> property tax assessment on the basis of less than 5 aircraft of a specific
> model being made? Can you provide a reference to the tax code where that
> is defined? (I hope that this applies to California??)
>
> Stu Fields
>
>

It DOES apply in California. Get the information on "historic aircraft"
from your tax collector. You pay a one-time fee of $35 (per county
based) and have to agree to display it to the public at least 12 days
per year.

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

[Corrie]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Stu Fields" > wrote:
>
> > Jim Weir: I believe that you made reference to an exemption from personal
> > property tax assessment on the basis of less than 5 aircraft of a specific
> > model being made? Can you provide a reference to the tax code where that
> > is defined? (I hope that this applies to California??)
> >
> > Stu Fields
> >
> >
>
> It DOES apply in California. Get the information on "historic aircraft"
> from your tax collector. You pay a one-time fee of $35 (per county
> based) and have to agree to display it to the public at least 12 days
> per year.

Is "display to the public" defined in the law?

[Ken Sandyeggo]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Stu Fields" > wrote:
>
> > Jim Weir: I believe that you made reference to an exemption from personal
> > property tax assessment on the basis of less than 5 aircraft of a specific
> > model being made? Can you provide a reference to the tax code where that
> > is defined? (I hope that this applies to California??)
> >
> > Stu Fields
> >
> >
>
> It DOES apply in California. Get the information on "historic aircraft"
> from your tax collector. You pay a one-time fee of $35 (per county
> based) and have to agree to display it to the public at least 12 days
> per year.

Doesn't have to be less than 5 made, it just needs to be "antique" and
for you to display it 12 times a year. I'm rusty on the years they
consider "antique" in California, maybe 35 years old or older. I used
to get the exemption on my Ercoupes.

Ken J. - Sandy, Egg Ho

[Greg Burkhart]

"Ken Sandyeggo" > wrote in message
om...
> Doesn't have to be less than 5 made, it just needs to be "antique" and
> for you to display it 12 times a year. I'm rusty on the years they
> consider "antique" in California, maybe 35 years old or older. I used
> to get the exemption on my Ercoupes.
>
> Ken J. - Sandy, Egg Ho

I realize this thread is mostly for California registration/tax. MN has
Antique/Classic registration for aircraft over 50 years old at a one time
fee of $25.
"If an antique or classic aircraft is owned and operated solely as a
collector's item"
(http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/ops/acreg/info.html)
I registered my Ercoupe in MN and paid the one-time fee.

[Ken Sandyeggo]

Bernie the Bunion > wrote in message >...
> > Ken Sandyeggo > wrote:
>
> > I used to get the exemption on my Ercoupes.
>
> Ercoupes ?????
>
> Just how many did you own.???

I owned 3, but not all at the same time....a 66 Alon A2A which was the
prototype A2A and started as a leftover Forney, a 49 G model and a 46
C model.

Ken J. - Now Coupeless in Sandy Eggo

[Bernie the Bunion]

> Ken Sandyeggo > wrote:

> I owned 3, but not all at the same time....a 66 Alon A2A which was the
> prototype A2A and started as a leftover Forney, a 49 G model and a 46
> C model.


Well that impresses the Bejeesus out of me.

Any chance you could post some info as to your involvement with
these planes.

When you got them, what were they like to own, maintain, fly etc.

For us arm chair pilots ( and lurkers ) what are the main differences
between the models.... For instance do the numbers indicate model
numbers or years they were produced in.

Don't know about others in the group but I'm always interested in
those types of stories and details.

Speaking of pictures - I don't ever recall seeing pics of these planes
on your website, do you have any - please and thank you.

And finally if your site is still up could you post the URL. I'd like to
see your latest $100 hamburger shots of you and your bottomless
sidekick.

Bernie

[Ken Sandyeggo]

Bernie the Bunion > wrote in message >...
> > Ken Sandyeggo > wrote:
>
> > I owned 3, but not all at the same time....a 66 Alon A2A which was the
> > prototype A2A and started as a leftover Forney, a 49 G model and a 46
> > C model.
>
>
> Well that impresses the Bejeesus out of me.
>
> Any chance you could post some info as to your involvement with
> these planes.
>
> When you got them, what were they like to own, maintain, fly etc.
>
> For us arm chair pilots ( and lurkers ) what are the main differences
> between the models.... For instance do the numbers indicate model
> numbers or years they were produced in.
>
> Don't know about others in the group but I'm always interested in
> those types of stories and details.
>
> Speaking of pictures - I don't ever recall seeing pics of these planes
> on your website, do you have any - please and thank you.
>
> And finally if your site is still up could you post the URL. I'd like to
> see your latest $100 hamburger shots of you and your bottomless
> sidekick.
>
> Bernie

Bernie, maybe your post will be the thing that kicks me in my ass to
update my website. I've been flying the AAI conversion for months and
still don't have any photos of it in the new configuration on my site.
Here it is anyway:

http://www.geocities.com/kenj_sandyeggo/KensWebPage.html?942383509800


When I get around to updating, I'll scan some 'Coupe photos and give
them a section.

The letters give a general time frame. The "C"s were the originals,
but most were upgraded to "CD"s or "D"s if I recall. Mostly had to do
with the elevator range I believe. The Alon had factory pedals and
the "G" (around 1949) had them added with an after-market kit. The
"C" was the original rudder-pedal-less version and was the one that I
liked flying the best. There's no rudder trim, so I was always
dancing on the rudder pedals to keep her straight. You just forget
about it in the "C." If she flies sideways, you just keep your feet
flat on the floor. You landed it the same way, in a crab. She'd
straighten right out when the mains touched, and then you lowered the
nosewheel so you could steer. If someone was so used to rudder pedals
and had a hard time adjusting, you could glue 2 big rectangular
sponges on the floor and then they could press their feet to their
heart's content.

They were pretty easy to maintain, except there's been a lot of
corrosion showing up in the aluminum ribs and at the wing roots as
most are well over 50 years old now. One AD calls for making Swiss
cheese out of the bottoms of the wings for inspection holes. I think
an alternative is a borescope inspection of some kind. If anyone buys
one, make sure the wing-corrosion AD is taken care of or at least
reflected in the price. I loved flying them and if I ever went back
to FW, I'd probably get another. They're not as cheap as they used to
be. You could get a really nice one for around 6-8000. I paid a
premium price of 10 thou for my polished "G" model as it was a superb
restoration. A few owners later it went for around 17 thou. Probably
worth well over 20 today if it's in the same condition.

Ken J. - Sandy A. Ghowe

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:18:10 -0700, "Stu Fields" >
wrote:

>Jim Weir: I believe that you made reference to an exemption from personal
>property tax assessment on the basis of less than 5 aircraft of a specific
>model being made? Can you provide a reference to the tax code where that
>is defined? (I hope that this applies to California??)

In Michigan there is no personal tax on individually owned airplanes.
Sales tax when you purchase and a yearly registration which is based
on weight and far, far less than an automobile.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Stu Fields
>

[Corrie]

"Greg Burkhart" > wrote in message news:<3E61b.216963$YN5.148805@sccrnsc01>...

> "If an antique or classic aircraft is owned and operated solely as a
> collector's item"
> (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/ops/acreg/info.html)
> I registered my Ercoupe in MN and paid the one-time fee.

Greg, how does MN deal with homebuilts? According to that page,
you're required to register "when you acquire all or part of an
aircraft" - that *could* be construed as the first shipment of spruce
and plywood.

But since you're the manufacturer, and the registration fee is based
on the aircraft manufacturer's list price ... say I set a list price
of $1. What does the state do?

I suppose once it's flying they want you to register it as a
"recreational aircraft" for $25 annually. It'd be nice if a new
aircraft built from "classic" plans such as a Fly Baby or Pietenpol
would qualify for the one-time fee.

[Corrie]

"Greg Burkhart" > wrote in message news:<7up1b.224692$YN5.153974@sccrnsc01>...
> Since I'm not a homebuilder (yet?), I don't have personal experience with
> the MN registration of homebuilts. Looking at that site, it does look like
> they want the aircraft registered as soon as the first part is shipped into
> the state, but I pressume (probably wrongly?!) that it would first be
> registered as unairworthy until it was completed.

The "unairworthy" clause seems only to apply to a/c that have been
damaged.

> It also sounds like if you
> don't pay sales tax when you purchase the parts, you'll have to pay the
> sales/use tax or get a credit if you paid the tax to some other state. See:
> http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/ops/acreg/AirRegApp.pdf

Generally, you only pay state sales tax on mailorder transactions if
you're a resident of the state.


> > I suppose once it's flying they want you to register it as a
> > "recreational aircraft" for $25 annually. It'd be nice if a new
> > aircraft built from "classic" plans such as a Fly Baby or Pietenpol
> > would qualify for the one-time fee.
>
> I think the aircraft itself would have to be built 50 years ago before it
> would qualify as a 'classic'.
> From: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/ops/acreg/info.html
> Definitions: "antique" aircraft means an aircraft constructed by the
> original manufacturer on or before December 31, 1945; "classic" aircraft
> means an aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer on or after
> January 1, 1946, with a first year of life equal to or greater than 50 years
> at the time of registration.

That last sentence is so convoluted as to be meaningless.

> I am NOT an expert on the MN or IA registration! Check with the state...

ohhhh, yeah. At least they give a name and phone number.

[Gig Giacona]

"Corrie" > wrote in message
>
> Generally, you only pay state sales tax on mailorder transactions if
> you're a resident of the state.
>
>

Actually the merchant only has to collect the sales tax if they have a
presence in the state of the buyer. That doesn't mean it isn't owed. Many
states are getting tired of their income flow being cut by all the mail
order services out there and have started charging use tax on mail ordered
items that they identify.

To this point they are having a hard time making that identification.

[dann mann]

Speaking of Ercoupes, whatever happened to Captain Fred after his crash
out there at Gillespie Field? Of course the local media never followed
up
Dan ( La Mesa)

[Ken Sandyeggo]

(dann mann) wrote in message >...
> Speaking of Ercoupes, whatever happened to Captain Fred after his crash
> out there at Gillespie Field? Of course the local media never followed
> up
> Dan ( La Mesa)

Ole Captain Fred is pretty scarce these days. His hangar is across
from mine and about 2 hangars down. He sublets it to a guy with an
older Citabria. I keep checking the NTSB reports, but the outcome is
still pending. It's May 11th of last year if anyone wants to read the
prelim report. I last saw him a couple months ago and he was walking
around O.K., maybe a little stiff walking.

When he flipped on the freeway, there was gas-spill on the pavement,
so we know there was some gas in there. From having owned 3 Ercoupes,
my opinion is (as if anyone really gives a royal ****) that he did run
out of gas, but from the 6 gallon header-tank which feeds the carb by
gravity. The 18 gallons in the wing tanks get pumped to the header
tank and recirculates back via an overflow line.

The reason I think this is, because that 6 gallons will last just
about an hour. The mechanic who installed the overhauled engine
ground ran it for 20 minutes and Fred was flying for about 45 minutes
when the engine quit as I recall. Supposedly the fuel pump checked
O.K., but there is a shut-off valve on the right sidewall, just about
where a passenger's right foot would be for the wing tanks. I suspect
that sometime during the engine removal and reinstall, that valve got
turned off, leaving only the 6 gallons available to burn and the spill
was from the unused wing-tank gas. I suspect that he was so
distracted with monitoring the sounds, instruments and temps, that he
neglected to notice the header-tank bobber going down. This is my
guess anyway.

I took a girlfriend to lunch one day a few years ago, and as we neared
the airport, I noticed the "header-tank bobber indicator" going down.
This only happens if you're burning the last 6 gallons in the header.
I knew I shouldn't have been into the header-tank. After landing, I
looked around and found that when my passenger placed her purse on the
floor next to her right foot, it pushed against the handle and shut
off the fuel to the header. The lever is so far tucked out of site,
hardly anyone ever uses it, or even knows about it, and I never
noticed that it wasn't safety-wired, which actually it shouldn't be in
case you need to shut off the fuel to the header. I safety-wired it
when we got back anyway. It flips off much too easily and there's no
way anyone could reach it in flight anyway.

My hangar partner is a retired airline mechanic and he's the one that
removed and reinstalled Fred's engine after it was overhauled along
with the carb elsewhere. He's still sweating it for another year as
to whether he'll get sued by Fred, even though he did nothing more
than remove and reinstall the engine and run it for 20 minutes. He
thought that maybe he plumbed the fuel pump ass-backwards, but he
found out from the FAA that it was hooked up correctly to pump into
the header and not suck gas out. I'm thinking the final report should
be out any day now, but nothing so far.

[dann mann]

Thanks Ken for all that info. Glad Fred is up and walking. Probably his
wife and friends have kept him focused on getting better. I only met him
a few times but his TV show was kinda fun and he really put some effort
into showing aviation to kids.
Glad you survived your near fuel-out.
Take it easy

[[email protected]]

On 24 Aug 2003 01:55:15 -0700, (Ken Sandyeggo)
wrote:
:
:Ole Captain Fred is pretty scarce these days. His hangar is across
:from mine and about 2 hangars down. He sublets it to a guy with an
:older Citabria. I keep checking the NTSB reports, but the outcome is
:still pending. It's May 11th of last year if anyone wants to read the
:prelim report. I last saw him a couple months ago and he was walking
:around O.K., maybe a little stiff walking.

Ken, would you drop me a note, richard(at)riley(dot)net

[Ken Sandyeggo]

(dann mann) wrote in message >...
> Thanks Ken for all that info. Glad Fred is up and walking. Probably his
> wife and friends have kept him focused on getting better. I only met him
> a few times but his TV show was kinda fun and he really put some effort
> into showing aviation to kids.
> Glad you survived your near fuel-out.
> Take it easy

Capt. Fred is a really nice guy, but his show is mainly about blowing
his own horn. He did a show on me and my gyro. They taped (his wife
did) during the construction period over 9.5 months and then we went
out for about 1.5 hours of air-to-air shots. When the show came on,
about 90% of it is Fred yapping into the camera about insignificant
trivia about gyros, like old movies they were in and he doesn't pay
much attention to what the interviewee is saying in most of his shows.
He repeats the same questions over and over. I recall one show where
he was interviewing an antiquer from the condo hangars next door to
mine. Fred must have said something about how he and the other
antiquers "rent" hangars over there 4 times. The guy kept correcting
him until it looked like he was ready to swat Fred on the back of the
head. Then in closing, Fred asks him who people can contact to "rent"
a hangar where he's at.

The flight and construction footage on my gyro was almost nil. Fred
was caught up in inconsequential trivia and showcasing his knowledge
of it....which was often a little off-base. I'm not rapping Fred as a
person. He's a good man and I know he has some missionary work that
he doesn't talk about much in his background, but I felt the time I
spent for the show was kind of a waste of time. Almost all the
questions he posed could only be answered by me as "yes" or "correct,
Fred."

Most of the exposure of flying to kids was done by his wife, Anna,
through the Girl Scout programs she'd hold in their hangar. Fred
would be there helping out, but his wife ran the show. Unfortunately,
she was at the airport watching Fred on final through a set of
binoculars when he hit the fence and flipped. She's also an extremely
nice person, as is Fred and we all hope that Fred and Anna get back
into flying someday, but I could understand how an experience like
that might sour them on it. She is also a pilot and flew their
Ercoupe regularly.

Ken J. - SDCAUSA92117

[Corrie]

"...could not be used for personal use of any sort..."

What a crock! Sure glad I don't live in CA. Jim Klein for Guv! Y'all
need a FLYER in Sacramento.


"Stu" > wrote in message >...
> I discussed the exemptions to the personal property tax with the Kern co.
> Calif Assessor. His reading said that I could apply for an exemption based
> on the unique (less than 5 built) nature of the ship. However, it had to be
> displayed for the public 12 times a year and could not be used for personal
> use of any sort. Joy riding, taking the wife for a ride for breakfast. I
> asked if I could take my wife, who was recording readings necessary for the
> review of maintenance actions to an airport where we could discuss (over
> breakfast) the maintenance issues with a knowledgeable person. There seems
> to be some openings in the exemption laws. I've asked for an exemption
> request form and I'm going to review it more closely.
>
> Stu Fields
> > wrote in message ...
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:56:32 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > > wrote:
> >
> > :In article >,
> > : (Corrie) wrote:
> > :
> > :> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message
> > :>
>
> .
> > :> ..
> > :> > In article >,
> > :> > "Stu Fields" > wrote:
> > :> >
> > :> > > Jim Weir: I believe that you made reference to an exemption from
> > :> > > personal
> > :> > > property tax assessment on the basis of less than 5 aircraft of a
> > :> > > specific
> > :> > > model being made? Can you provide a reference to the tax code
> where
> > :> > > that
> > :> > > is defined? (I hope that this applies to California??)
> > :> > >
> > :> > > Stu Fields
> > :> > >
> > :> > >
> > :> >
> > :> > It DOES apply in California. Get the information on "historic
> aircraft"
> > :> > from your tax collector. You pay a one-time fee of $35 (per county
> > :> > based) and have to agree to display it to the public at least 12 days
> > :> > per year.
> > :>
> > :> Is "display to the public" defined in the law?
> > :
> > :Nope. A number of organizations (Frazier Lake Airpark, for one) schedule
> > :at least one day per month for aircraft public display. Attending
> > :fly-ins and airshows counts as "public display," and, AFAIK, does not
> > :have to be in state.
> >
> > can it apply to airplanes that are recent (not historic) but are
> > unique?

[John Scott]

"Ken Sandyeggo" > wrote in message > looked around and
found that when my passenger placed her purse on the
> floor next to her right foot, it pushed against the handle and shut
> off the fuel to the header. The lever is so far tucked out of site,
> hardly anyone ever uses it, or even knows about it, and I never
> noticed that it wasn't safety-wired, which actually it shouldn't be in
> case you need to shut off the fuel to the header. I safety-wired it
> when we got back anyway. It flips off much too easily and there's no
> way anyone could reach it in flight anyway.

If it can't be reached during flight, this might be a moot point, but for
what it's worth:

When I was C-141 mechanic in the Air Force Reserves years ago, we would
safety wire things like the battery box lid with copper safety wire
(couldn't tell you the gage, but it was thinner than normal safety wire).
The idea was that the copper wire could be broken with with human strength
in flight if the need arose.