Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

[WJRFlyBoy]

http://tinyurl.com/24og9o

Read about the bewildering details of a number of long-suffering
non-resident pilots who have been caught in the FL tax trap, (otherwise
known as the "Florida Landing Fee").

It starts like this... you buy a new or used aircraft and sign the bill
of sale... which starts "the clock." It is Florida's position that for
the next six months (possibly thereafter, though the burden of proof
reportedly changes at that point), the state has the right to exact the
requisite "Use Tax" (Sales Tax) for the fact you partook of the state's
services unless you can show an equivalent Use or Sales Tax receipt from
another state...

In other words, for those of you who may have bought a $500K Cessna,
Cirrus, Columbia, etc... unless you can prove that you paid the
equivalent use tax in another state, you owe the state of Florida some
$30K if you visited the state in the first six months of your ownership.
Mind you, if your sales/use tax bill comes from a state that exacts LESS
tax than Florida, the FL Department of Revenue still expects you to pony
up the difference... and if you're from a state that exacts a minimum
fee (like the few hundred dollars for owners in South Carolina), they
will bill you for the WHOLE difference... and its up to you to fight
them on it.

No kidding.

[Tina]

That same thought process should work for a car or RV for that matter.
Way to go, FL!


On Mar 22, 4:15*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/24og9o
>
> Read about the bewildering details of a number of long-suffering
> non-resident pilots who have been caught in the FL tax trap, (otherwise
> known as the "Florida Landing Fee").
>
> It starts like this... you buy a new or used aircraft and sign the bill
> of sale... which starts "the clock." It is Florida's position that for
> the next six months (possibly thereafter, though the burden of proof
> reportedly changes at that point), the state has the right to exact the
> requisite "Use Tax" (Sales Tax) for the fact you partook of the state's
> services unless you can show an equivalent Use or Sales Tax receipt from
> another state...
>
> In other words, for those of you who may have bought a $500K Cessna,
> Cirrus, Columbia, etc... unless you can prove that you paid the
> equivalent use tax in another state, you owe the state of Florida some
> $30K if you visited the state in the first six months of your ownership.
> Mind you, if your sales/use tax bill comes from a state that exacts LESS
> tax than Florida, the FL Department of Revenue still expects you to pony
> up the difference... and if you're from a state that exacts a minimum
> fee (like the few hundred dollars for owners in South Carolina), they
> will bill you for the WHOLE difference... and its up to you to fight
> them on it.
>
> No kidding.

[Charles Vincent]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/24og9o
>
> Read about the bewildering details of a number of long-suffering
> non-resident pilots who have been caught in the FL tax trap, (otherwise
> known as the "Florida Landing Fee").
>
> It starts like this... you buy a new or used aircraft and sign the bill
> of sale... which starts "the clock." It is Florida's position that for
> the next six months (possibly thereafter, though the burden of proof
> reportedly changes at that point), the state has the right to exact the
> requisite "Use Tax" (Sales Tax) for the fact you partook of the state's
> services unless you can show an equivalent Use or Sales Tax receipt from
> another state...
>
> In other words, for those of you who may have bought a $500K Cessna,
> Cirrus, Columbia, etc... unless you can prove that you paid the
> equivalent use tax in another state, you owe the state of Florida some
> $30K if you visited the state in the first six months of your ownership.
> Mind you, if your sales/use tax bill comes from a state that exacts LESS
> tax than Florida, the FL Department of Revenue still expects you to pony
> up the difference... and if you're from a state that exacts a minimum
> fee (like the few hundred dollars for owners in South Carolina), they
> will bill you for the WHOLE difference... and its up to you to fight
> them on it.
>
> No kidding.


Reading the referenced story and linked articles, you would think the
author has a bigger axe to grind with Sun n Fun than the Florida sales
tax.

From the EAA website:

Sun 'n Fun Calls Reports of Florida Use Tax Inaccurate

March 21, 2008 — Recent reports of “use taxes” being levied on airplanes
owned by non-resident visitors to Florida are not accurate, according to
officials at Sun ’n Fun Fly-In at Lakeland, Florida, whose annual
aviation season kick-off takes place the week of April 8-13. Sun ’n Fun
has fielded numerous calls from concerned pilots and exhibitors worried
about the report and is looking to alleviate those concerns.

“I’ve talked with the General Counsel of the Florida Department of
Revenue and he assured me that, number 1, there will not be state tax
agents doing ramp checks, and that out-of-state pilots have nothing to
fear,” said John Burton, Sun ’n Fun president. The Florida DoR informed
Burton that the tax affects only those owners who have purchased their
airplane in another state (outside Florida) within the past six months,
but who have the aircraft titled and registered in Florida and have not
paid Florida sales tax on that airplane.

Sun ’n Fun received correspondence from Florida Department of Revenue
Executive Director Lisa Echeverri dated March 19, 2008, that includes
the statement: “Florida does not assess a use tax on non-resident
aircraft owners in every circumstance where an aircraft is brought to
Florida within the first six months.”

“It does not impact Sun ’n Fun exhibitors and aircraft dealers; it does
not impact aircraft owners who have owned their aircraft for more than
six months,” Burton said. “The idea of having somebody who has purchased
an airplane out of state and is not a resident of FL, getting charged a
use tax here is absolutely ludicrous.

“It’s a classic case of much ado about nothing.”

Pat Phillips, a member of the EAA Legal Advisory Council as well as Sun
’n Fun air show chairman and a fly-in director, is familiar with the
situation. “If somebody goes out of state and buys an airplane in a
state that charges no sales tax and brings it to Florida, and the
airplane is based in Florida, the buyer lives in Florida, and is using
the airplane in Florida, yes, he would owe a 6 percent use tax,” he said.

“Now, if a transient aircraft comes into Florida from a state where they
have not paid sales tax on the aircraft or are just visiting here, they
would have no obligation to pay a use tax in the state of Florida just
for using their airplane while visiting in the state,” he said. “And I
believe constitutionally that would be in conflict with the commerce
laws of the U.S.”

Phillips added, “If a person, willingly or innocently, avoids sales tax
by buying out of state but bases his aircraft in Florida and lives in
the state, then the use tax obligation may apply. But for a person who
simply flies down to Florida but lives in another state, he will not be
assessed a tax. It’s preposterous to even think the state would impose a
sales tax.”

When EAA’s Government Affairs department learned about the Florida use
tax story, it responded immediately by contacting its Legal Advisory
Council, which worked with Sun ’n Fun management to get official
clarification from the Florida Department of Revenue.

“This is a good example of how our staff, working with the council, was
able to get to the bottom of this story and help clarify this
situation,” said Earl Lawrence, EAA vice president of industry and
regulatory affairs. “Hopefully this will put to rest the concerns of
non-Florida residents who intend to fly into the state for Sun ’n Fun,
or any time, for that matter.”

[John Ammeter]

There's nothing new here. AFAIK, every state has the same policy. You
buy a large ticket item out of state to avoid state sales/use tax and
you're liable for the tax when you bring it home.

It's a stretch to say that if you visit Florida you're going to get
nailed for this tax. But, given where this item showed up and the
author of it, I'm not surprised. Reading the article I'm not surprised
to find his normal Sun and Fun bashing...

John

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/24og9o
>
> Read about the bewildering details of a number of long-suffering
> non-resident pilots who have been caught in the FL tax trap, (otherwise
> known as the "Florida Landing Fee").
>
> It starts like this... you buy a new or used aircraft and sign the bill
> of sale... which starts "the clock." It is Florida's position that for
> the next six months (possibly thereafter, though the burden of proof
> reportedly changes at that point), the state has the right to exact the
> requisite "Use Tax" (Sales Tax) for the fact you partook of the state's
> services unless you can show an equivalent Use or Sales Tax receipt from
> another state...
>
> In other words, for those of you who may have bought a $500K Cessna,
> Cirrus, Columbia, etc... unless you can prove that you paid the
> equivalent use tax in another state, you owe the state of Florida some
> $30K if you visited the state in the first six months of your ownership.
> Mind you, if your sales/use tax bill comes from a state that exacts LESS
> tax than Florida, the FL Department of Revenue still expects you to pony
> up the difference... and if you're from a state that exacts a minimum
> fee (like the few hundred dollars for owners in South Carolina), they
> will bill you for the WHOLE difference... and its up to you to fight
> them on it.
>
> No kidding.

[RST Engineering]

..
..
I wasn't aware that maniac had a cousin.

Jim



--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> http://tinyurl.com/24og9o
>
> Read about the bewildering details of a number of long-suffering
> non-resident pilots who have been caught in the FL tax trap, (otherwise
> known as the "Florida Landing Fee").

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-22, John Ammeter > wrote:
> It's a stretch to say that if you visit Florida you're going to get
> nailed for this tax. But, given where this item showed up and the
> author of it, I'm not surprised. Reading the article I'm not surprised
> to find his normal Sun and Fun bashing...

I first heard about this when Phil Boyer mentioned it briefly at the AOPA
Pilot's Town Meeting in Charlotte last Tuesday. It's real.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:56:07 -0500, Charles Vincent
> wrote:


>Pat Phillips, a member of the EAA Legal Advisory Council as well as Sun
>’n Fun air show chairman and a fly-in director, is familiar with the
>situation. “If somebody goes out of state and buys an airplane in a
>state that charges no sales tax and brings it to Florida, and the
>airplane is based in Florida, the buyer lives in Florida, and is using
>the airplane in Florida, yes, he would owe a 6 percent use tax,” he said.
>
>“Now, if a transient aircraft comes into Florida from a state where they
>have not paid sales tax on the aircraft or are just visiting here, they
>would have no obligation to pay a use tax in the state of Florida just
>for using their airplane while visiting in the state,” he said. “And I
>believe constitutionally that would be in conflict with the commerce
>laws of the U.S.”
>
>Phillips added, “If a person, willingly or innocently, avoids sales tax
>by buying out of state but bases his aircraft in Florida and lives in
>the state, then the use tax obligation may apply. But for a person who
>simply flies down to Florida but lives in another state, he will not be
>assessed a tax. It’s preposterous to even think the state would impose a
>sales tax.”

So is the EAA lawyer going to go talk to the Florida DOR for the
Meridian owner who flew to VRB for training and got smacked with a
$100,000 tax bill because he flew to FL in an out-of-state based and
registered aircraft for a week to get training and then left? It's
not like the original areo-news article (and today's follow-up cover
responding to the EAA's above message) doesn't have documented cases
of people having to go to court for what he says is "preposterous to
even think" would happen.

[Mike Isaksen]

"John Ammeter" wrote ...
> It's a stretch to say that if you visit Florida you're going to get nailed
> for this tax. But, given where this item showed up and
> the author of it, I'm not surprised. Reading the article I'm not
> surprised to find his normal Sun and Fun bashing...
>

Yup,... I read this article at ANN a few days back and was saddened to think
the old Capt Zoom is Back.

I had become a fan Jim Campbell's latest effort with Aero-News Net. I
visited it several times a week, even beginning to prefer it to AvWeb as a
timely info source. I even went over and shook Jim's hand at Hartford AOPA
Expo (where I saw him with camera crew in tow), to wish him success with his
new Aero TV Video Network. I thought his video coverage at AirVenture was
excellent.

Unfortunately this Florida Tax article shows his backslide into the nasty
side of his Capt Zoom alter ego, where he displays no hesitancy to use his
media network against his perceived enemies. I can only assume that shortly
before Jim penned that article he had again been denied Media Credentialed
Access to Sun-n-Fun. No doubt a harsh reminder of his "ban for life".

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:56:07 -0500, Charles Vincent wrote:

> Reading the referenced story and linked articles, you would think the
> author has a bigger axe to grind with Sun n Fun than the Florida sales
> tax.

True, and apparently he has.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:06:35 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> On 2008-03-22, John Ammeter > wrote:
>> It's a stretch to say that if you visit Florida you're going to get
>> nailed for this tax. But, given where this item showed up and the
>> author of it, I'm not surprised. Reading the article I'm not surprised
>> to find his normal Sun and Fun bashing...
>
> I first heard about this when Phil Boyer mentioned it briefly at the AOPA
> Pilot's Town Meeting in Charlotte last Tuesday. It's real.

It is very real and is beginning to be a heavily enforced tax source for
FL. Money from non constituents, political paradise.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 22, 1:15*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/24og9o

> No kidding.

The article makes no sense. First it makes it sound like anyone flying
down to Florida may get charged this tax. Then it says vehicles that
are bought out-of-state but titled in Florida are charged. Well, the
same had been true in California for decades. If you put a CA address
in the FAA registry for the aircraft address you will automatically
get a tax bill. So the take-away of this article is that if you fly to
Sun-in-fun don't list your hotel address as the address where the
aircraft is registered.

-robbert

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <xBgFj.638$Qv5.93@trnddc03>, Mike Isaksen says...

>Yup,... I read this article at ANN a few days back and was saddened to think
>the old Capt Zoom is Back.
>
>I had become a fan Jim Campbell's latest effort with Aero-News Net. I
>visited it several times a week, even beginning to prefer it to AvWeb as a
>timely info source. I even went over and shook Jim's hand at Hartford AOPA
>Expo (where I saw him with camera crew in tow), to wish him success with his
>new Aero TV Video Network. I thought his video coverage at AirVenture was
>excellent.
>
>Unfortunately this Florida Tax article shows his backslide into the nasty
>side of his Capt Zoom alter ego, where he displays no hesitancy to use his
>media network against his perceived enemies. I can only assume that shortly
>before Jim penned that article he had again been denied Media Credentialed
>Access to Sun-n-Fun. No doubt a harsh reminder of his "ban for life".

Mike what you just found out is something a lot of us experienced a long time
ago ,the Tiger never changes his stripes. It happened the first time when he was
with a California based Magazine, he burned bridges and moved East and behaved
himself . Then he had a nice magazine for a while and his nasty backside reared
it evil vindictive head again and the zoom wars started in earnest. His magazine
went bust.He went quiet again and behaved. ANN started and it's just a matter of
time before the real zoom shows up aaaanndd He's Baack!!

One thing for sure is that when he's acting up in public he's been active
behind the scenes. He's still billing advertizers for ads they don't want.

What you did when you shook his hand was to encourage him to think that he's
justified in his actions.All he needs is one Atta Boy and he's off and running.
He's still a phoney .IMHO.

Chuck S

Credibility it was always about credibility....Chuck S

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 10:47*am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
> In article <xBgFj.638$Qv5.93@trnddc03>, Mike Isaksen says...
>
> >Yup,... I read this article at ANN a few days back and was saddened to think
> >the old Capt Zoom is Back.
>
> >I had become a fan Jim Campbell's latest effort with Aero-News Net. I
> >visited it several times a week, even beginning to prefer it to AvWeb as a
> >timely info source. I even went over and shook Jim's hand at Hartford AOPA
> >Expo (where I saw him with camera crew in tow), to wish him success with his
> >new Aero TV Video Network. I thought his video coverage at AirVenture was
> >excellent.
>
> >Unfortunately this Florida Tax article shows his backslide into the nasty
> >side of his Capt Zoom alter ego, where he displays no hesitancy to use his
> >media network against his perceived enemies. I can only assume that shortly
> >before Jim penned that article he had again been denied Media Credentialed
> >Access to Sun-n-Fun. No doubt a harsh reminder of his "ban for life".
>
> Mike what you just found out is something a lot of us experienced a long time
> ago ,the Tiger never changes his stripes. It happened the first time when he was
> with a California based Magazine, he burned bridges and moved East and behaved
> himself . Then he had a nice magazine for a while and his nasty backside reared
> it evil vindictive head again and the zoom wars started in earnest. His magazine
> went bust.He went quiet again and behaved. ANN started and it's just a matter of
> time before the real zoom shows up aaaanndd He's Baack!!
>
> One thing for sure *is that when he's acting up in public he's been active
> behind the scenes. He's still billing advertizers for ads they don't want.
>
> What you did when you shook his hand was to encourage him to think that he's
> justified in his actions.All he needs is one Atta Boy and he's off and running.
> He's still a phoney .IMHO.
>
> Chuck S
>
> Credibility it was always about credibility....Chuck S

Hey Chuck!!!

This latest line of zzzoom B.S. is one of those deals that just don't
add up. Can you imagine Netjets or some outfit like that flying a new
Gulfstream into Florida to pick up a charter and get that tax bill.
Maybe the state should just post a tax collector at each gate at MIA
and bill American every time they taxi in a new 777.

I liked the part toward the end of his rant about SnF inflating their
visitor count. I remember when the worthless ******* sued me (I won).
He stated under oath that he had in excess of 45,000 paid subscribers
to his so called magazine most believe it was closer to maybe 4,000 or
less.

This is just his latest ploy to stick it to SnF for barring him from
the show. You can about set your watch by his annual anti- Sun n Fun
rant.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


>This latest line of zzzoom B.S. is one of those deals that just don't
>add up. Can you imagine Netjets or some outfit like that flying a new
>Gulfstream into Florida to pick up a charter and get that tax bill.
>Maybe the state should just post a tax collector at each gate at MIA
>and bill American every time they taxi in a new 777.
>
>I liked the part toward the end of his rant about SnF inflating their
>visitor count. I remember when the worthless ******* sued me (I won).
>He stated under oath that he had in excess of 45,000 paid subscribers
>to his so called magazine most believe it was closer to maybe 4,000 or
>less.
>
>This is just his latest ploy to stick it to SnF for barring him from
>the show. You can about set your watch by his annual anti- Sun n Fun
>rant.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
week that it's all in this guy's head?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 3:44*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >This latest line of zzzoom B.S. is one of those deals that just don't
> >add up. Can you imagine Netjets or some outfit like that flying a new
> >Gulfstream into Florida to pick up a charter and get that tax bill.
> >Maybe the state should just post a tax collector at each gate at MIA
> >and bill American every time they taxi in a new 777.
>
> >I liked the part toward the end of his rant about SnF inflating their
> >visitor count. I remember when the worthless ******* sued me (I won).
> >He stated under oath that he had in excess of 45,000 paid subscribers
> >to his so called magazine most believe it was closer to maybe 4,000 or
> >less.
>
> >This is just his latest ploy to stick it to SnF for barring him from
> >the show. You can about set your watch by his annual anti- Sun n Fun
> >rant.
>
> > *Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq
>
> He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
> owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
> week that it's all in this guy's head?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I got a notion that there is more to this than meets the eye. What if
the guy bought the plane in Florida, he would owe the sales taxes on
it. I can think of other scenarios that could cause this to happen. I
don't know but I am very skeptical of anything that comes from
campbell. So far we have only heard one side of this story.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

[Jim Logajan]

Peter Clark > wrote:
> He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
> owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
> week that it's all in this guy's head?

I've read the Florida state law in question and it is clear the alleged
Meridian and Cirrus owners in question have plenty of legal recourse.
The law clearly is on his side if the claims of the original story are
true. The following Aero-News Network (ANN) story appears to suggest to
me that ANN is specifically trying to damage SnF:

http://www.aero-news.net/SpecialContent.cfm?ContentBlockID=d204990d-76de-4014-9efe-6ab40616eab2&cat=21

Does the above story sound objective to you? Is the author attacking
Florida or SnF? It reads to me like there is an axe being ground against
SnF.

Furthermore, I can't find a byline on any of the Aero-News Network
stories on this issue - it would be nice to contact the reporter and
request further evidence. If the people who were forced to pay the tax
were indeed innocent, I would fully expect them to want to share
their outrage. After all, at this late date the aircraft owners
allegedly have nothing more to lose if their claims and those of the ANN
reporter are legitimate.

Lastly, check out the following thread on another forum:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=278784

The post there by a Ken Ibold (allegedly a resident of Florida) suggests
the ANN story is a case of poor reporting at best.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> http://www.aero-news.net/SpecialContent.cfm?ContentBlockID=d204990d-76de-4014-9efe-6ab40616eab2&cat=21
>
> Does the above story sound objective to you? Is the author attacking
> Florida or SnF? It reads to me like there is an axe being ground
> against SnF.

I should have scrolled down farther past the article and perused the
list of stories under "More Headlines". There was no need for me to
qualify the issue - ANN by its own admission is out to destroy SnF.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Peter Clark > wrote:
> > He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
> > owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
> > week that it's all in this guy's head?

> I've read the Florida state law in question and it is clear the alleged
> Meridian and Cirrus owners in question have plenty of legal recourse.
> The law clearly is on his side if the claims of the original story are
> true. The following Aero-News Network (ANN) story appears to suggest to
> me that ANN is specifically trying to damage SnF:

> http://www.aero-news.net/SpecialContent.cfm?ContentBlockID=d204990d-76de-4014-9efe-6ab40616eab2&cat=21

> Does the above story sound objective to you? Is the author attacking
> Florida or SnF? It reads to me like there is an axe being ground against
> SnF.

> Furthermore, I can't find a byline on any of the Aero-News Network
> stories on this issue - it would be nice to contact the reporter and
> request further evidence. If the people who were forced to pay the tax
> were indeed innocent, I would fully expect them to want to share
> their outrage. After all, at this late date the aircraft owners
> allegedly have nothing more to lose if their claims and those of the ANN
> reporter are legitimate.

> Lastly, check out the following thread on another forum:

> http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=278784

> The post there by a Ken Ibold (allegedly a resident of Florida) suggests
> the ANN story is a case of poor reporting at best.

If so, he has the AOPA and Phil Boyer on the hook too.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080320fl.html

"The state Department of Revenue has recently been charging Florida
use tax on ->any<- airplane that is brought to the state within six
months of being bought if the owner did not pay at least 6-percent
sales tax at the time of purchase."

Emphasis on the word "any" is mine.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Mar 23, 3:44*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>> >This latest line of zzzoom B.S. is one of those deals that just don't
>> >add up. Can you imagine Netjets or some outfit like that flying a new
>> >Gulfstream into Florida to pick up a charter and get that tax bill.
>> >Maybe the state should just post a tax collector at each gate at MIA
>> >and bill American every time they taxi in a new 777.
>>
>> >I liked the part toward the end of his rant about SnF inflating their
>> >visitor count. I remember when the worthless ******* sued me (I won).
>> >He stated under oath that he had in excess of 45,000 paid subscribers
>> >to his so called magazine most believe it was closer to maybe 4,000 or
>> >less.
>>
>> >This is just his latest ploy to stick it to SnF for barring him from
>> >the show. You can about set your watch by his annual anti- Sun n Fun
>> >rant.
>>
>> > *Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq
>>
>> He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
>> owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
>> week that it's all in this guy's head?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I got a notion that there is more to this than meets the eye. What if
>the guy bought the plane in Florida, he would owe the sales taxes on
>it. I can think of other scenarios that could cause this to happen. I
>don't know but I am very skeptical of anything that comes from
>campbell. So far we have only heard one side of this story.
>
>Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

Today's ANN cover:
"Daniel Cheung, a CPA and Member of Aviation Tax Consultants, LLC, one
of the nation's most experienced and highly regarded aviation tax
consulting firms, has contacted ANN to support our concerns about
possible risks to visiting non-resident aircraft (of less than six
month's ownership) from the FL Use tax issues we have been writing
about for well over a year.

Mr Cheung reports that, "I can say unequivocally that Florida
Department of Revenue has assessed 6% use tax to a NON-FLORIDA
resident, visiting Florida for SIMCOM training shortly after purchase
the aircraft."

Cheung substantiated the statement with the "...facts of this
assessment."

North Carolina resident purchased a plane in North Carolina
This North Carolina taxpayer brought his plane into Florida for SIMCOM
training
This NC taxpayer does not own a business in Florida, does not own real
estate in Florida and he is not an officer in a Florida corporation
FL DOR located his aircraft on a ramp check and issued an assessment
based on Florida Admin. Code Rule 12A-1.007(2)(a)
The taxpayer PAID the FL use tax plus interest and penalty.
A refund has not been issued as of last week "

The referenced statue:

"(2) Purchases Outside Florida.

(a) There shall be a presumption that any aircraft, boat, mobile
home, motor vehicle, or other vehicle purchased in another state,
territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia but
titled, registered, or licensed in this state is taxable except as
otherwise provided in subsection (26) of this rule. This presumption
may be rebutted only by documentary evidence that the person owning
the aircraft, boat, mobile home, or motor vehicle purchased the
aircraft, boat, mobile home, ormotor vehicle in another state,
territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia six (6)
months or more prior to the time it is brought into this state. In
order for such property to be presumed exempt as purchased for use
outside Florida, the person owning the aircraft, boat, mobile home,
motor vehicle, or other vehicle must provide documentary proof that
such propert was used in other states, territories of the United
States, or the District of Columbia for six months or longer under
conditions which would lawfully give rise to the taxing jurisdiction
of another state, territory, or District of Columbia and any lawfully
imposed tax was paid to such state, territory, or District of Columbia
before being imported into this state. However, the rental or lease of
any aircraft, boat, mobile home, or motor vehicle which is used or
stored in this state is taxable without regard to its prior use or tax
paid on the purchase outside this state."

So, I can see where FL DOR is getting off on billing people with the
presumption that it was spotted in the state 6mo or less after
purchase on the bill of sale. Kind of like Maine was (is?) not too
long ago. Maybe that's where the DOR honchos said "Hey, let's start
doing some ramp checks, this looks like easy money." Pretty crappy
thing to do if you're there for training but that's why people are
fighting it. I guess the only defense would be to provide six months
of tiedown bills from another state covering the first six months of
time after purchase?

[Mike Murdock]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...>
<SNIP>
> Mr Cheung reports that, "I can say unequivocally that Florida
> Department of Revenue has assessed 6% use tax to a NON-FLORIDA
> resident, visiting Florida for SIMCOM training shortly after purchase
> the aircraft."
>
> Cheung substantiated the statement with the "...facts of this
> assessment."
>
> North Carolina resident purchased a plane in North Carolina
> This North Carolina taxpayer brought his plane into Florida for SIMCOM
> training
> This NC taxpayer does not own a business in Florida, does not own real
> estate in Florida and he is not an officer in a Florida corporation
> FL DOR located his aircraft on a ramp check and issued an assessment
> based on Florida Admin. Code Rule 12A-1.007(2)(a)
> The taxpayer PAID the FL use tax plus interest and penalty.
> A refund has not been issued as of last week "
<SNIP>
> So, I can see where FL DOR is getting off on billing people with the
> presumption that it was spotted in the state 6mo or less after
> purchase on the bill of sale. Kind of like Maine was (is?) not too
> long ago. Maybe that's where the DOR honchos said "Hey, let's start
> doing some ramp checks, this looks like easy money." Pretty crappy
> thing to do if you're there for training but that's why people are
> fighting it. I guess the only defense would be to provide six months
> of tiedown bills from another state covering the first six months of
> time after purchase?

I know Daniel Cheung personally, and he is a straight shooter. The facts
are as stated. The ONLY reason the Meridian owner was charged with the tax
was that he had it at a Florida airport for a few days while he was there
for training. He didn't buy the plane in Florida, was never a Florida
resident, and didn't have any business interests in Florida. The way the
Florida tax law is currently written, it is all perfectly legal. The only
exception: you are exempt if the airplane is in Florida for service.

Showing proof that the airplane is kept in another state is immaterial. The
Meridian owner spent $10,000 in legal fees fighting this before giving up
and paying the tax.

Whatever Campbell's beef with SNF, his basic facts are correct. The Florida
Dept. of Revenue believes it has the right to collect use tax on
out-of-state planes, and has done so in the past. Now, I doubt that even
those idiots would be foolish enough to try it at SNF, and they may well
have assured SNF management that they will not do so, but the fact remains
that their law gives them the right to collect.

By the way, this does not apply just to new airplanes. It applies to ANY
airplane, new or used, purchased in the prior six months.

The Florida government is aware of this issue, and I suspect they are a bit
embarassed by the bad publicity. A Florida legislator is working on a bill
that would make the tax apply only to Florida residents.

-Mike

[John Ammeter]

I've read the statute and have copied part of it below:



2) Purchases Outside Florida.

(a) There shall be a presumption that any aircraft, boat, mobile
home, motor vehicle, or other vehicle purchased in another state,
territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia but
titled, registered, or licensed in this state is taxable except as
otherwise provided in subsection (26) of this rule.



The way I read it is the aircraft is taxable IF it's "titled, registered
or licensed" in Florida. IF the aircraft was purchased more than 6
months ago then the tax isn't applicable.

So, I buy a Cessna in Alabama where I live and work. And register it in
Alabama... Then it's not a taxable event in Florida. BUT, if I buy it
in Alabama and then, for some unknown reason, I register it in
Florida... then it's a taxable event.

I note that the statement that Cheung made didn't address whether or not
the aircraft was registered in Florida or somewhere else. If the
Meridian owner had registered the aircraft in Florida then, of course,
the tax was applicable. It's possible the owner failed to register the
aircraft in a state other than Florida. I can certainly see where
Florida tax officials could easily make the assumption that the owner
was trying to avoid paying taxes at all...

We don't know all the details. It appears the author of the article was
more concerned about trashing Sun and Fun than actually doing real
investigative and non-biased reporting. But, that's what we've grown to
expect from Captain Zoom...

John

Mike Murdock wrote:
>
>
>
> I know Daniel Cheung personally, and he is a straight shooter. The
> facts are as stated. The ONLY reason the Meridian owner was charged
> with the tax was that he had it at a Florida airport for a few days
> while he was there for training. He didn't buy the plane in Florida,
> was never a Florida resident, and didn't have any business interests in
> Florida. The way the Florida tax law is currently written, it is all
> perfectly legal. The only exception: you are exempt if the airplane is
> in Florida for service.
>
> Showing proof that the airplane is kept in another state is immaterial.
> The Meridian owner spent $10,000 in legal fees fighting this before
> giving up and paying the tax.
>
> Whatever Campbell's beef with SNF, his basic facts are correct. The
> Florida Dept. of Revenue believes it has the right to collect use tax on
> out-of-state planes, and has done so in the past. Now, I doubt that
> even those idiots would be foolish enough to try it at SNF, and they may
> well have assured SNF management that they will not do so, but the fact
> remains that their law gives them the right to collect.
>
> By the way, this does not apply just to new airplanes. It applies to
> ANY airplane, new or used, purchased in the prior six months.
>
> The Florida government is aware of this issue, and I suspect they are a
> bit embarassed by the bad publicity. A Florida legislator is working on
> a bill that would make the tax apply only to Florida residents.
>
> -Mike

[BobR]

On Mar 23, 5:39*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 23, 3:44*pm, Peter Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > >This latest line of zzzoom B.S. is one of those deals that just don't
> > >add up. Can you imagine Netjets or some outfit like that flying a new
> > >Gulfstream into Florida to pick up a charter and get that tax bill.
> > >Maybe the state should just post a tax collector at each gate at MIA
> > >and bill American every time they taxi in a new 777.
>
> > >I liked the part toward the end of his rant about SnF inflating their
> > >visitor count. I remember when the worthless ******* sued me (I won).
> > >He stated under oath that he had in excess of 45,000 paid subscribers
> > >to his so called magazine most believe it was closer to maybe 4,000 or
> > >less.
>
> > >This is just his latest ploy to stick it to SnF for barring him from
> > >the show. You can about set your watch by his annual anti- Sun n Fun
> > >rant.
>
> > > *Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq
>
> > He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
> > owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
> > week that it's all in this guy's head?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I got a notion that there is more to this than meets the eye. What if
> the guy bought the plane in Florida, he would owe the sales taxes on
> it. I can think of other scenarios that could cause this to happen. I
> don't know but I am very skeptical of anything that comes from
> campbell. So far we have only heard one side of this story.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Specific Exemptions

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

An aircraft may be purchased tax-exempt if it is sold by or through a
registered dealer to a nonresident purchaser who will remove the
aircraft from this state. Within 5 days of the date of sale, the
dealer must provide DOR with a copy of the invoice, bill of sale, and/
or closing statement; and the original, signed, removal affidavit.

Tax will not be due if either of the following requirements are met:

The aircraft must be removed from Florida within 10 days from the date
of sale.
If the aircraft needs repairs, additions, or alterations, it must
immediately be placed in a repair facility registered with DOR and
removed from Florida within 20 days from the date the work is
complete.
The purchaser must also meet these requirements:

Sign an affidavit attesting that the purchaser has read the applicable
rules and law regarding the exemption claimed and will timely remove
the aircraft as required.
Within 10 days of removal, furnish DOR with proof that the aircraft
left Florida (submit copies of receipts for fuel charges, tie-down
charges, or repair or hangar charges from outside Florida).
Within 30 days of departure, furnish DOR with written proof that the
aircraft was licensed, registered, titled, and hangared outside
Florida.
This exemption does not apply to sales to Florida residents,
corporations whose officers or directors are Florida residents, or
other entities whose controlling individual is a Florida resident.

==========================

Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. Based on these, there
should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.

[Harry K]

On Mar 23, 7:22*pm, BobR > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 5:39*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 3:44*pm, Peter Clark
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > > >This latest line of zzzoom B.S. is one of those deals that just don't
> > > >add up. Can you imagine Netjets or some outfit like that flying a new
> > > >Gulfstream into Florida to pick up a charter and get that tax bill.
> > > >Maybe the state should just post a tax collector at each gate at MIA
> > > >and bill American every time they taxi in a new 777.
>
> > > >I liked the part toward the end of his rant about SnF inflating their
> > > >visitor count. I remember when the worthless ******* sued me (I won).
> > > >He stated under oath that he had in excess of 45,000 paid subscribers
> > > >to his so called magazine most believe it was closer to maybe 4,000 or
> > > >less.
>
> > > >This is just his latest ploy to stick it to SnF for barring him from
> > > >the show. You can about set your watch by his annual anti- Sun n Fun
> > > >rant.
>
> > > > *Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq
>
> > > He might have a not-so-secret agenda, but wanna tell the Meridian
> > > owner who got a $100,000+ tax bill when he showed up at SimCom for a
> > > week that it's all in this guy's head?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I got a notion that there is more to this than meets the eye. What if
> > the guy bought the plane in Florida, he would owe the sales taxes on
> > it. I can think of other scenarios that could cause this to happen. I
> > don't know but I am very skeptical of anything that comes from
> > campbell. So far we have only heard one side of this story.
>
> > Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Specific Exemptions
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
>
> An aircraft may be purchased tax-exempt if it is sold by or through a
> registered dealer to a nonresident purchaser who will remove the
> aircraft from this state. Within 5 days of the date of sale, the
> dealer must provide DOR with a copy of the invoice, bill of sale, and/
> or closing statement; and the original, signed, removal affidavit.
>
> Tax will not be due if either of the following requirements are met:
>
> The aircraft must be removed from Florida within 10 days from the date
> of sale.
> If the aircraft needs repairs, additions, or alterations, it must
> immediately be placed in a repair facility registered with DOR and
> removed from Florida within 20 days from the date the work is
> complete.
> The purchaser must also meet these requirements:
>
> Sign an affidavit attesting that the purchaser has read the applicable
> rules and law regarding the exemption claimed and will timely remove
> the aircraft as required.
> Within 10 days of removal, furnish DOR with proof that the aircraft
> left Florida (submit copies of receipts for fuel charges, tie-down
> charges, or repair or hangar charges from outside Florida).
> Within 30 days of departure, furnish DOR with written proof that the
> aircraft was licensed, registered, titled, and hangared outside
> Florida.
> This exemption does not apply to sales to Florida residents,
> corporations whose officers or directors are Florida residents, or
> other entities whose controlling individual is a Florida resident.
>
> ==========================
>
> Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. *Based on these, there
> should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Trying to tax an airplane (or other vehicle) legally bought and
registered in another state state would be in conflict with federal
laws concerning the 'right of free travel', i.e., you can travel
freely across state borders. They can no more tax a plane in those
circumstances than they can an automobile, boat, etc. Not to say they
can't charge user fees but that is a different animal.

Harry K

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:04:43 -0700, John Ammeter
> wrote:

>I've read the statute and have copied part of it below:
>
>
>
>2) Purchases Outside Florida.
>
> (a) There shall be a presumption that any aircraft, boat, mobile
>home, motor vehicle, or other vehicle purchased in another state,
>territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia but
>titled, registered, or licensed in this state is taxable except as
>otherwise provided in subsection (26) of this rule.
>
>
>
>The way I read it is the aircraft is taxable IF it's "titled, registered
>or licensed" in Florida. IF the aircraft was purchased more than 6
>months ago then the tax isn't applicable.

Read the AOPA's take on it.
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080320fl.html
If you read farther in the statute, the way the state is
*apparently* intertpeting it is ANY anirplane brought into the state
purchased less than 6 months prior whether it is registered in the
state or not.

>
>So, I buy a Cessna in Alabama where I live and work. And register it in
>Alabama... Then it's not a taxable event in Florida. BUT, if I buy it
>in Alabama and then, for some unknown reason, I register it in
>Florida... then it's a taxable event.
>
>I note that the statement that Cheung made didn't address whether or not
>the aircraft was registered in Florida or somewhere else. If the
>Meridian owner had registered the aircraft in Florida then, of course,
>the tax was applicable. It's possible the owner failed to register the
>aircraft in a state other than Florida. I can certainly see where
>Florida tax officials could easily make the assumption that the owner
>was trying to avoid paying taxes at all...
>
>We don't know all the details. It appears the author of the article was
>more concerned about trashing Sun and Fun than actually doing real
>investigative and non-biased reporting. But, that's what we've grown to

Skip Campbell and read the AOPA<:-))

>expect from Captain Zoom...
>
>John
>
>Mike Murdock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I know Daniel Cheung personally, and he is a straight shooter. The
>> facts are as stated. The ONLY reason the Meridian owner was charged
>> with the tax was that he had it at a Florida airport for a few days
>> while he was there for training. He didn't buy the plane in Florida,
>> was never a Florida resident, and didn't have any business interests in
>> Florida. The way the Florida tax law is currently written, it is all
>> perfectly legal. The only exception: you are exempt if the airplane is
>> in Florida for service.
>>
>> Showing proof that the airplane is kept in another state is immaterial.
>> The Meridian owner spent $10,000 in legal fees fighting this before
>> giving up and paying the tax.
>>
>> Whatever Campbell's beef with SNF, his basic facts are correct. The
>> Florida Dept. of Revenue believes it has the right to collect use tax on
>> out-of-state planes, and has done so in the past. Now, I doubt that
>> even those idiots would be foolish enough to try it at SNF, and they may
>> well have assured SNF management that they will not do so, but the fact
>> remains that their law gives them the right to collect.
>>
>> By the way, this does not apply just to new airplanes. It applies to
>> ANY airplane, new or used, purchased in the prior six months.
>>
>> The Florida government is aware of this issue, and I suspect they are a
>> bit embarassed by the bad publicity. A Florida legislator is working on
>> a bill that would make the tax apply only to Florida residents.
>>
>> -Mike
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

>>
>> Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. *Based on these, there
>> should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.- Hide quoted text -

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080320fl.html
Apparently some of their collectors are placing a different
interpetation on the rules.


>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Trying to tax an airplane (or other vehicle) legally bought and
>registered in another state state would be in conflict with federal
>laws concerning the 'right of free travel', i.e., you can travel
>freely across state borders. They can no more tax a plane in those
>circumstances than they can an automobile, boat, etc. Not to say they
>can't charge user fees but that is a different animal.

Hasn't the statre of Maine been doing just that?

>
>Harry K
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike Murdock" > wrote:
> I know Daniel Cheung personally, and he is a straight shooter. The
> facts are as stated. The ONLY reason the Meridian owner was charged
> with the tax was that he had it at a Florida airport for a few days
> while he was there for training. He didn't buy the plane in Florida,
> was never a Florida resident, and didn't have any business interests
> in Florida.

Someone mentioned that the _one_ identified incident involved an
aircraft that was allegedly a Meridian - I presume they meant a Piper
Meridian - is that correct?

If that is the case, isn't it true that Piper is based in Florida and
its tax "nexus" is therefore Florida?

Was the seller Piper or some other Florida entity for the purposes of
sales tax or not? If not, what state did the seller reside in for sales
tax purposes?

Also, I notice that on Aviation Tax Consultants web page (Danial
Cheung's firm; http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/index.html) there
is one article that mentions an incident in Florida that happened in
August 2007:

http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/pdfs/Sales%20Tax%20Update%20-%20Aug%202007.pdf

If this is the same incident, why is it being brought up 7 months later?

I suppose I could contact Daniel Cheung directly, but am hoping you can
supply an answer since you seem to have the information at hand and I
presume he is unfamiliar with Usenet.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jim Logajan says...
?
>
>Also, I notice that on Aviation Tax Consultants web page (Danial
>Cheung's firm; http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/index.html) there
>is one article that mentions an incident in Florida that happened in
>August 2007:
>
>http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/pdfs/Sales%20Tax%20Update%20-%20Aug%202007.pdf
>
>If this is the same incident, why is it being brought up 7 months later?

Easy 7 months ago zoom was still involved with his lawsuit against SnF and
didn't need to. Now that his lawsuit was dismissed and he lost he needed
something to go after SnF with for his annual SnF rant and this is it.

Chuck(I bet there's more to it )S

[Peter Dohm]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>>> Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. Based on these, there
>>> should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.- Hide quoted
>>> text -
>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080320fl.html
> Apparently some of their collectors are placing a different
> interpetation on the rules.
>
>
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Trying to tax an airplane (or other vehicle) legally bought and
>>registered in another state state would be in conflict with federal
>>laws concerning the 'right of free travel', i.e., you can travel
>>freely across state borders. They can no more tax a plane in those
>>circumstances than they can an automobile, boat, etc. Not to say they
>>can't charge user fees but that is a different animal.
>
> Hasn't the statre of Maine been doing just that?
>
>>
>>Harry K
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

My copy of AOPA Pilot was in today's mail and, as of press time, the Maine
case is still going. Apparently, the Maine revenue department won't budge
and the case is now headed to court...

Not my area of expertise, so that's all I know.
Peter

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:45:41 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. Based on these, there
>>>> should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080320fl.html
>> Apparently some of their collectors are placing a different
>> interpetation on the rules.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>Trying to tax an airplane (or other vehicle) legally bought and
>>>registered in another state state would be in conflict with federal
>>>laws concerning the 'right of free travel', i.e., you can travel
>>>freely across state borders. They can no more tax a plane in those
>>>circumstances than they can an automobile, boat, etc. Not to say they
>>>can't charge user fees but that is a different animal.
>>
>> Hasn't the statre of Maine been doing just that?
>>
>>>
>>>Harry K
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>My copy of AOPA Pilot was in today's mail and, as of press time, the Maine
>case is still going. Apparently, the Maine revenue department won't budge
>and the case is now headed to court...
>
>Not my area of expertise, so that's all I know.
Me neither, but the AOPA online site is saying they are working with
the state of Florida for a moratorium until after SnF and then rectify
things . They seem to think (the way I read it) is this could be a
big problem for SnF if not settled or a moratorium comes about to
protect those flying into SnF.

The problem I see on here is the guys are so hung up on Zoomn (and I
understand why) but the problem in this case according to the AOPA
is the state of Florida.
>Peter
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:45:41 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. Based on these,
>>>>> there should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.-
>>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080320fl.html
>>> Apparently some of their collectors are placing a different
>>> interpetation on the rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>Trying to tax an airplane (or other vehicle) legally bought and
>>>>registered in another state state would be in conflict with federal
>>>>laws concerning the 'right of free travel', i.e., you can travel
>>>>freely across state borders. They can no more tax a plane in those
>>>>circumstances than they can an automobile, boat, etc. Not to say
>>>>they can't charge user fees but that is a different animal.
>>>
>>> Hasn't the statre of Maine been doing just that?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Harry K
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>My copy of AOPA Pilot was in today's mail and, as of press time, the
>>Maine case is still going. Apparently, the Maine revenue department
>>won't budge and the case is now headed to court...
>>
>>Not my area of expertise, so that's all I know.
> Me neither, but the AOPA online site is saying they are working with
> the state of Florida for a moratorium until after SnF and then rectify
> things . They seem to think (the way I read it) is this could be a
> big problem for SnF if not settled or a moratorium comes about to
> protect those flying into SnF.
>
> The problem I see on here is the guys are so hung up on Zoomn (and I
> understand why) but the problem in this case according to the AOPA
> is the state of Florida.
>>Peter
>>

What do you expect of a state of which over 50% of the populace is of an
age where they'll keep your balll if it falls in their yard?


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Hey folks, I thought you would all like to know that the story about the
Meridian and Cirrus owners getting hit with Florida state sales or use
tax for allegedly doing nothing more than stopping there is actually A
REPEAT FROM MAY 2007! Here's the original story (NOTE THE ARTICLE DATE):

http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=b8527739-b125-4922-a224-cf789ea94039&Dynamic=1

Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any of
you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)

Oh yeah - and my suspicion that the Piper Meridian was actually a sale
of a new aircraft from a Florida based company (and therefore reasonably
subject to Florida sales tax) is hinted at by these quotes from that
article:

"... Piper is reportedly NOT pleased about the Meridian tax bill noted
above ... We have a feeling that Piper CEO Jim Bass may have a few
things to say, as a result of these recent events, since anyone taking
delivery at a Florida Piper plant may find themselves with a tax bill,
even if they leave the state right away and never darken the state's
borders again."

So basically the article all but admits the buyer of that ~$1.9M Piper
Meridian[1] took delivery in Florida. No wonder someone well heeled
enough to afford that kind of plane didn't try very hard to contest the
6% sales tax (~$114,000).

[1] http://www.newpiper.com/aircraft/meridian/specifications.asp

[Jim Logajan]

Roger > wrote:
> Me neither, but the AOPA online site is saying they are working with
> the state of Florida for a moratorium until after SnF and then rectify
> things . They seem to think (the way I read it) is this could be a
> big problem for SnF if not settled or a moratorium comes about to
> protect those flying into SnF.

See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N. is
basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause maximum
damage to it and Florida. It appears to this causal observer that AOPA has
fallen for a sucker punch. Note carefully that their letter and complaint
is totally lacking in detail or specifics. I wonder why?

Somebody who is a member of AOPA (I am not) might want to alert them to
this bit of rehashed "journalism".

> The problem I see on here is the guys are so hung up on Zoomn (and I
> understand why) but the problem in this case according to the AOPA
> is the state of Florida.

I didn't know who "zoom" was when I first started reading
rec.aviation.homebuilt (among the groups this is cross-posted to) and
really have no beef with the fellow. But the criticisms of him by others
did make me suspicious of both his critics and him. And it does look like
the "Zoom hangup" in this case is warranted.

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:
>Roger > wrote:
>
>See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N. is
>basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause maximum
>damage to it and Florida.

Did it really happen or not? Apparently it did. Has the law changed
to prevent a recurrance? Apparently it has not. Is a major aviation
event scheduled to appear in the not-too-distant-future? It certainly
is. Does this pose a danger to people who would be likely to fly in
to it? I think it does. I think warning the aviation community
of the problem is perfectly reasonable. A simple visit to Florida
could cost you many thousands of dollars. Anybody tempted to visit
that state deserves to know this.

Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.
I think the AOPA should give some serious thought to moving SnF to a
state that's not so hostile to visiting aviation.

More importantly, I think we should fight this trend fought tooth-and-nail
while we still can. First Maine, and now Florida. Pretty soon, all
the states will get it into their heads that they can enhance revenue
by charging use tax on every expensive vehicle that crosses the border.
Soon, all of us will be limited to flying our airplanes around strictly
within the confines of our home states.


So; is it true or not? The AOPA article looks pretty damning. I hope
it's not true. What evidence do you have that it's not?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:
>Hey folks, I thought you would all like to know that the story about the
>Meridian and Cirrus owners getting hit with Florida state sales or use
>tax for allegedly doing nothing more than stopping there is actually A
>REPEAT FROM MAY 2007!

So what?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Stan Prevost]

I ran into this tax scam in Michigan after buying my airplane there.
Actually the broker was there, the seller and buyer were both out of state.
Michigan has a 90-day period, during which we allowed Indiana to have our
money for fuel, hangar, rental car, etc. when we went to Michigan from our
main home in Alabama.

Also, more than 90 days a year in Michigan, you have to register the
airplane. Not a big deal, $30/yr. But registration triggers use tax if you
haven't already paid sales tax.

Stan

[Jim Logajan]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>Roger > wrote:
>>
>>See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N.
>>is basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause
>>maximum damage to it and Florida.
>
> Did it really happen or not? Apparently it did.

Correct - a sale in Florida got hit with a Florida sales tax. That is
perfectly normal and doesn't deserve any press.

> Has the law changed
> to prevent a recurrance? Apparently it has not.

And it doesn't appear to need any changing. You can find it on the web.
Since you appear to be claiming that the law needs changing, why don't
you quote it and tell us what aspect needs changing?

> A simple visit to Florida
> could cost you many thousands of dollars. Anybody tempted to visit
> that state deserves to know this.

Baloney. A simple visit to Florida does not trigger use tax. Florida
would not have prevailed if that were their only basis for demanding the
tax.

> Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.

What precisely do you think the story is here? Are you claiming the
seller was not a Florida company? If so, you have information I don't
have. Please share with me who the seller was and what state they were
in. I'm claiming there is a preponderance of evidence indicating Piper, a
Florida company, delivered to a North Carolina person or legal entity a
plane that was subject to Florida sales tax. You present precisely zero
evidence - just outrage.

> So; is it true or not? The AOPA article looks pretty damning.

If it is so damning, then feel free to quote the cases listed in the AOPA
article of inappropriate sales tax. You only need name one. I'll be here
all year.

> What evidence do you have that it's not?

Res ipsa loquitur:

Florida has the sales tax money and the buyer gave up, even though by my
estimate the difference between NC and FL taxes for the plane was worth a
bit more than $30,000 to the purchaser.

[Jim Logajan]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>Hey folks, I thought you would all like to know that the story about the
>>Meridian and Cirrus owners getting hit with Florida state sales or use
>>tax for allegedly doing nothing more than stopping there is actually A
>>REPEAT FROM MAY 2007!
>
> So what?

You elided the essential bits of my post and left that? Why?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:39:06 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

> Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.
> I think the AOPA should give some serious thought to moving SnF to a
> state that's not so hostile to visiting aviation.

AOPA? What does AOPA have to do with SnF?

And if you meant to say "EAA," well, EAA has nothing to do with it, either.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any of
> you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)

Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to do so
or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns, if the whole
thing is just a Zoom vendetta?

Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-25, Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.

All I know is that N55ZC will not be visiting Florida until after I've paid
Minnesota's 6.5% use tax on the purchase. (That's nearly $10K, ouch!)

> I think the AOPA should give some serious thought to moving SnF to a
> state that's not so hostile to visiting aviation.

As others have noted, that's an EAA event. I don't know how much control EAA
has over it, but I do know the event has EAA's sanction, at least.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Denny]

Sun-N-Fun Fly-In is a nonprofit corporation separate from EAA and
separate from Airventure...
It started as a local EAA chapter throwing a dawn patrol/fly-in, but
it began to grow and make money... When the EAA began demanding to
feed at the trough, the people doing the work in Florida did not see
any reason to just hand the money over...
For those who think of it as just the winter version of the EAA
airshow, go look at the SUN-N-FUN FLY-IN website... No where is the
EAA Logo shown... The only concession to the EAA is if you are a
member of the Florida Air Museum or the EAA, you will get a price
break on your admission fee... <in small print and no EAA logo>

Whereas, go to the Airventure site and the EAA logo is part of the
copyrighted banner "EAA" AIRVENTURE... So you know which fat hogs are
feeding at the trough...

I don't go to either show, much anymore... At Oshkosh the stench of
greed takes most of the fun out of it... Sun-N-Fun simply has gotten
too big and too commercial, just like AIrventure... I'm looking for a
fly-in with more of the old time fun factor...
Suggestions will be entertained... <I do a mean soft shoe routine>

denny

[Steve Foley]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any of
> > you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)
>
> Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to do
so
> or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns, if the
whole
> thing is just a Zoom vendetta?
>

I suspect Phil Boyer is actually doing something about it, rather than
printing re-runs.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-25, Steve Foley > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to do
>> so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns, if the
>> whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?
> I suspect Phil Boyer is actually doing something about it, rather than
> printing re-runs.

Indeed...and he'd look awfully silly trying to get the Florida Department of
Revenue to fix a problem that's not a problem.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>Correct - a sale in Florida got hit with a Florida sales tax. That is
>perfectly normal and doesn't deserve any press.

The article also mentions a Cirrus; was that a Florida sale?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[BobR]

On Mar 25, 3:34*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any of
> > you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)
>
> Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to do so
> or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns, if the whole
> thing is just a Zoom vendetta?
>
> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

The issue isn't so much rather the tax is real but rather it should be
tied into a damning of the Sun-N-Fun event. Clearly, the story was a
reprint with the intent to do harm to the Sun-N-Fun event by
association and a threat that it could happen to anyone attending. I
won't comment on rather something is wrong with the Florida Use Tax
without full details of the context in which it was applied. Using it
to threaten anyone attending Sun-N-Fun with a similar tax or implying
that Sun-N-Fun has any direct relation is totally without merit and
only shows that Campbell will stop at nothing to destroy the event.

[Harry K]

On Mar 24, 10:17*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >>Roger > wrote:
>
> >>See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N.
> >>is basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause
> >>maximum damage to it and Florida.
>
> > Did it really happen or not? *Apparently it did.
>
> Correct - a sale in Florida got hit with a Florida sales tax. That is
> perfectly normal and doesn't deserve any press.
>
> > *Has the law changed
> > to prevent a recurrance? *Apparently it has not.
>
> And it doesn't appear to need any changing. You can find it on the web.
> Since you appear to be claiming that the law needs changing, why don't
> you quote it and tell us what aspect needs changing?
>
> > *A simple visit to Florida
> > could cost you many thousands of dollars. *Anybody tempted to visit
> > that state deserves to know this.
>
> Baloney. A simple visit to Florida does not trigger use tax. Florida
> would not have prevailed if that were their only basis for demanding the
> tax.
>
> > Should this story damage Florida? *If it's true, I would say yes.
>
> What precisely do you think the story is here? Are you claiming the
> seller was not a Florida company? If so, you have information I don't
> have. Please share with me who the seller was and what state they were
> in. I'm claiming there is a preponderance of evidence indicating Piper, a
> Florida company, delivered to a North Carolina person or legal entity a
> plane that was subject to Florida sales tax. You present precisely zero
> evidence - just outrage.
>
> > So; is it true or not? *The AOPA article looks pretty damning.
>
> If it is so damning, then feel free to quote the cases listed in the AOPA
> article of inappropriate sales tax. You only need name one. I'll be here
> all year.
>
> > What evidence do you have that it's not?
>
> Res ipsa loquitur:
>
> Florida has the sales tax money and the buyer gave up, even though by my
> estimate the difference between NC and FL taxes for the plane was worth a
> bit more than $30,000 to the purchaser.

I fid it passing sstrange that that one case happened almost a year
ago and seemingly none since. I hardly think that Florida would have
passed up the opportunity to collect bales of taxes from out-of-state
planes if it were possible. I am sure that there have been many more
than _one_ new plane bought within 6 months that visited there.

I would be interested in a link to the claimed Maine thing also.

Harry K

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-25, BobR > wrote:
> The issue isn't so much rather the tax is real but rather it should be
> tied into a damning of the Sun-N-Fun event.

For you and the other folks primarily concerned with Zoom, perhaps not. For
me as a new aircraft owner, I don't care if he's trying to trash Sun n Fun
or not: I care if Florida is going to try to ding me form $10K or so merely
for taking my new airplane there. I don't care who's raising the red flag,
or why. That AOPA is pursuing the matter is all the credibility I need to be
concerned about it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-25, Bryan Martin > wrote:
> The AOPA may have been sucked into this tempest the same as many others
> and is now aggressively trying to cut through the fog to get at the truth.

I strongly doubt the AOPA is in the habit of crying wolf. I'd be astounded
to learn that they raised the issue without checking into it to make sure
it's real.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any
>> of you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)
>
> Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to
> do so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns,
> if the whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?

I am not a "Zoom-basher". This is the first time I've ever looked into an
issue related to Jim Campbell. I've been posting to Usenet for many years
and have never previously discussed anything about this fellow and
otherwise could care less. I do have issues with deceptive "journalism"
though.

> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.

But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

[Jim Logajan]

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>>Correct - a sale in Florida got hit with a Florida sales tax. That is
>>perfectly normal and doesn't deserve any press.
>
> The article also mentions a Cirrus; was that a Florida sale?

Impossible to say. I can't even be sure the Meridian case is legit or not -
but I do know that important information was not provided in the A.N.N.
stories. Anyone who has run a business involving sales tax would probably
also have suspected something was missing from the story. My own first
thoughts on reading the story was - "Okay, what state was the seller in?
What state was the aircraft last owned in?" I didn't see answers to either
question mentioned.

[Jim Logajan]

Bryan Martin > wrote:
> Probably because AOPA received a bunch of e-mails from members
> expressing concern over this issue. Those members probably heard about
> the issue form the internet through e-mails or web site articles. It
> could be that the whole issue stated with the ANN article and then
> snowballed into the present fog of rumor and misinformation mixed with
> a small grain of fact.

Indeed. Here is Phil Boyer's letter to the Florida governer:

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080320fl.pdf

In it he explicitly states what motivated the letter:

"I am writing because of the rapidly growing concern expressed by our
members over what appears to be recent aggressive enforcement of Florida's
Use Tax, which has been the subject of numerous articles in the aviation
media."

Only Aero News Network (ANN) appears to (so far) have any stories on the
subject.

> The AOPA may have been sucked into this tempest
> the same as many others and is now aggressively trying to cut through
> the fog to get at the truth.

Hopefully they can find out how much substance there is behind ANN's
stories.

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:54:17 +0000 (UTC), (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:

>In article >,
>Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>>Correct - a sale in Florida got hit with a Florida sales tax. That is
>>perfectly normal and doesn't deserve any press.
>
>The article also mentions a Cirrus; was that a Florida sale?

When picking up the aircraft at the factory an "This will be exported
from Florida within 10 days" affadavit would have been filled out and
filed just like when picking up an aircraft in Cessna and leaving
Kansas. Just because you pick it up there doesn't neccessarily mean
the sale was in FL either, the dealer who you really buy it from is
most likely not based in Florida when doing new. But I don't know if
this was a "new" sale or a used sale whcih then proceeded to VRB for
the training.

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:49:07 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any
>>> of you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)
>>
>> Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to
>> do so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns,
>> if the whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?
>
>I am not a "Zoom-basher". This is the first time I've ever looked into an
>issue related to Jim Campbell. I've been posting to Usenet for many years
>and have never previously discussed anything about this fellow and
>otherwise could care less. I do have issues with deceptive "journalism"
>though.
>
>> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
>
>But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
>deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
>say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

Florida DOR can derail the entire thing by publishing on letterhead
something that says "Merely entering the state of Florida for vacation
or training in an aircraft that has changed hands within the last six
months will not neccessarily incur the state use tax" and listing the
specific conditions (based in FL, registered to a FL address, etc)
which would lead to the tax assessment, but they haven't done that
either.

[David Lesher]

Peter Clark > writes:


>When picking up the aircraft at the factory an "This will be exported
>from Florida within 10 days" affadavit would have been filled out and
>filed just like when picking up an aircraft in Cessna and leaving
>Kansas.

Note the big boys buy their Seattle tin somewhere over the Pacific Ocean
just to avoid taxes...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[stol]

On Mar 25, 1:53*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:49:07 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >>> Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any
> >>> of you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)
>
> >> Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to
> >> do so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns,
> >> if the whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?
>
> >I am not a "Zoom-basher". This is the first time I've ever looked into an
> >issue related to Jim Campbell. I've been posting to Usenet for many years
> >and have never previously discussed anything about this fellow and
> >otherwise could care less. I do have issues with deceptive "journalism"
> >though.
>
> >> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
>
> >But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
> >deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
> >say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?
>
> Florida DOR can derail the entire thing by publishing on letterhead
> something that says "Merely entering the state of Florida for vacation
> or training in an aircraft that has changed hands within the last six
> months will not neccessarily incur the state use tax" and listing the
> specific conditions (based in FL, registered to a FL address, etc)
> which would lead to the tax assessment, but they haven't done that
> either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You guys are missing the boat a little bit. The Fla tax code reads."
If a plane is flown into the state for the intent of doing business
the owner/s are liable for paying the tax. " Even if it is for a day
or a week. Now imagine all the new aircraft that are being flown in to
demo, display and participate in the Sun and Fun fly in that are out
of state registered. By the current tax code the Fla dept of revenue
has every right to ramp check and impose said tax on those aircraft.
You can spin it any way you want and Zoom might be" less then
honerable" but the current law is what it is.....
YMMV.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
> But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
> deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
> say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an issue when
AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is not in the habit
of crying wolf.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), stol >
wrote:


>You guys are missing the boat a little bit. The Fla tax code reads."
>If a plane is flown into the state for the intent of doing business
>the owner/s are liable for paying the tax. " Even if it is for a day
>or a week.

I wonder if they consider going to training "doing business" and
that's why the non-Florida transaction Meridian was slapped. Guess
SimCom in Arizona will get busy if FL doesn't fix this, or does AZ
have something equally silly?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 25, 7:04*pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> >> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
> > But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
> > deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
> > say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?
>
> No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an issue when
> AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is not in the habit
> of crying wolf.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

I want to know why there is only one such incedent like this reported?
I have seen many new planes passing through Florida for business in
the last year. Just this past January they had the Light Sport
Exibition in Sebring. I didn't hear of one problem with the tax
collectors and they had about 150 vendors and planes here for
commercial use.

Like I stated in an earlier post zzzoom has an axe to grind and that
is the entire reason for this latest rant. You will find one thing
campbell is really good at is lying to get back at someone. Think
about Chuck S. and the Conn situation or the Capella that Shane Smith
crashed. With me he called the CEO of the airline that I worked for
and told him that I got into an argument with the international judges
at the Breitling cup event in Pompano Fl. Told him that I argued that
I was a manager for his airline and I could watch from the judges
area. What zzzoom didn't know was that I was there with the VP of
operations and he knew that nothing of the sort happened.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-26, > wrote:
> Like I stated in an earlier post zzzoom has an axe to grind and that
> is the entire reason for this latest rant.

From him, could well be. This does not in any way explain why AOPA would be
crying wolf. Take Zoom out of the equation. As long as AOPA says there's a
problem, it's not about Zoom.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Mike Murdock]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
<SNIP>
> But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
> deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
> say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

How about the Boston Globe with an Associated Press story? It includes a
quote by Louis Meiners, a Florida aviation tax consultant:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/30/plane_owners_stunned_by_out_of_state_taxes/

-Mike

[Mike Isaksen]

"Jim Logajan" wrote ...
> ...., I notice that on Aviation Tax Consultants web page (Danial
> Cheung's firm; http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/index.html)
> there is one article that mentions an incident in Florida that happened
> in August 2007:
>
> http://www.aviationtaxconsultants.com/pdfs/Sales%20Tax%20Update%20-%20Aug%202007.pdf
>
> If this is the same incident, why is it being brought up 7 months later?

I'm not sure the Meridian "owner" is the same as this "client" which Daniel
Cheung CPA is referencing. The fact that the Meridian is most certainly
owned by a corporation also muddies the water. The fact that someone paid a
$100K tax bill after "only" $10K in legal fees makes me think their case is
weak. And finally, why are there only vague references to shadowy examples?
Why isn't one N# listed in the examples? Surely if this was so unimaginably
unjust, why is there not a single HARD FACT that can be vetted?

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:58:06 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
> wrote:

>I ran into this tax scam in Michigan after buying my airplane there.
>Actually the broker was there, the seller and buyer were both out of state.
>Michigan has a 90-day period, during which we allowed Indiana to have our
>money for fuel, hangar, rental car, etc. when we went to Michigan from our
>main home in Alabama.
>
>Also, more than 90 days a year in Michigan, you have to register the
>airplane. Not a big deal, $30/yr. But registration triggers use tax if you
>haven't already paid sales tax.
>

Annnnndddd.... (drum roll) IF you valid receipt from the seller is
less then what the state of Michigan tax man thinks is fair market
value, they'll base the tax on THEIR book value.

We had one of our local chapter members find a really good buy on a
plane out-of-state. The guy wanted to move it fast (really needed the
money) so it was a great deal.. When he registered and paid the tax he
received an additional bill that valued the plane at roughly twice
what he'd paid for it. When he showed them the receipt they didn't
care. As it wasn't a super expensive plane he wasn't willing to spend
far more fighting it than he'd save if he won.


>Stan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:09:37 -0500, Mike Murdock wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> <SNIP>
>> But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
>> deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
>> say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?
>
> How about the Boston Globe with an Associated Press story? It includes a
> quote by Louis Meiners, a Florida aviation tax consultant:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/30/plane_owners_stunned_by_out_of_state_taxes/
>
> -Mike

"A number of other states, from Florida to Washington, are doing the
same as they grapple with budget shortfalls and as the Internet makes it
easier to track the comings and goings of aircraft."

Non constituent (voting) $$$ are easy prey for politicians. Florida in
2007 informed many counties and municipalities that the tried and true
state funds they often relied were going to be unavailable (cut). These
communities, where the voters are, have suffered especially in Capital
Improvements (fire, police, water facilities).

To fund the shortfalls in state budgets, Florida sees these $$$ as easy
pickings. For now at least. Sure beats upping a constituent tax and the
constituents are more than happy to get tax dollars from non
constituents.

[The Visitor]

I'm curious as to how the tax people would view Canadian aircraft?

John






WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:09:37 -0500, Mike Murdock wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
>>>deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
>>>say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?
>>
>>How about the Boston Globe with an Associated Press story? It includes a
>>quote by Louis Meiners, a Florida aviation tax consultant:
>>
>>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/30/plane_owners_stunned_by_out_of_state_taxes/
>>
>>-Mike
>
>
> "A number of other states, from Florida to Washington, are doing the
> same as they grapple with budget shortfalls and as the Internet makes it
> easier to track the comings and goings of aircraft."
>
> Non constituent (voting) $$$ are easy prey for politicians. Florida in
> 2007 informed many counties and municipalities that the tried and true
> state funds they often relied were going to be unavailable (cut). These
> communities, where the voters are, have suffered especially in Capital
> Improvements (fire, police, water facilities).
>
> To fund the shortfalls in state budgets, Florida sees these $$$ as easy
> pickings. For now at least. Sure beats upping a constituent tax and the
> constituents are more than happy to get tax dollars from non
> constituents.

[Lawrence]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious as to how the tax people would view Canadian aircraft?
>
> John
>

Copa has advised that Maine may tax CDN aircraft, remember that the USA is a
foreign country full of people with different customs and you have virtually
no protection there. I would be extremely cautious. I hear that they are
currently being ruled by a tyrannical regime with very little regard for
human rights. Frankly, I'd just stay clear of the place.

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
>> But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
>> deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue
>> on, say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?
>
> No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an
> issue when AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is
> not in the habit of crying wolf.

Jay, it now looks like the EAA also now thinks it is an issue:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-03-25_florida.asp

It contains the specific sections of the FL tax code that it has
concerns about. I did a bit of searching and found the "Official
Internet Site of the Florida Legislature" and the code in question is
here (212.05 and 212.06):

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0212/titl0212.htm&StatuteYear=2007&Title=%2D%3E2007%2D%3EChapter%20212

The EAA letter mentions two pending bills in the FL house and senate
that address the issue, which can be found here:

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=39256&SessionId=57

and here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2008&billnum=2856

One caveat: there are a lot of states in the U.S. with sales and use
taxes and it would not surprise me if others also contain ambiguous laws
that can cause pocketbook grief to the unwary if the tax authorities got
aggressive.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 26, 6:55*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
> > On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >>> Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
> >> But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
> >> deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue
> >> on, say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?
>
> > No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an
> > issue when AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is
> > not in the habit of crying wolf.
>
> Jay, it now looks like the EAA also now thinks it is an issue:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-03-25_florida.asp
>
> It contains the specific sections of the FL tax code that it has
> concerns about. I did a bit of searching and found the "Official
> Internet Site of the Florida Legislature" and the code in question is
> here (212.05 and 212.06):
>
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statut...
>
> The EAA letter mentions two pending bills in the FL house and senate
> that address the issue, which can be found here:
>
> http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=...
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=B....
>
> One caveat: there are a lot of states in the U.S. with sales and use
> taxes and it would not surprise me if others also contain ambiguous laws
> that can cause pocketbook grief to the unwary if the tax authorities got
> aggressive.

Again if this issue is 7 months old why didn't it come up during the
Light Sport Expo this January. The only thing I can see is zzzoom
doesn't have a bone to pick with them. Seems to me that if this was as
big a deal it has been made out to be the Florida Dept of Revenue
would have had a field day there.

If you read the AOPA letter to the FDOR it relates that members are "
concerned " about this. I still think that this goes back to one
person yelling fire in the theater and causing a stampede.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Again if this issue is 7 months old why didn't it come up during the
> Light Sport Expo this January. The only thing I can see is zzzoom
> doesn't have a bone to pick with them. Seems to me that if this was as
> big a deal it has been made out to be the Florida Dept of Revenue
> would have had a field day there.
>
> If you read the AOPA letter to the FDOR it relates that members are "
> concerned " about this. I still think that this goes back to one
> person yelling fire in the theater and causing a stampede.

I am general agreement with all that.

Two takes:

On one side are those who claim the issue is real and aircraft owners
visiting Florida must be getting hit right and left by zealous tax
collectors (else why would the AOPA and EAA be taking up the issue) so the
"zoom bashers" are obviously blinded by their dislike of the fellow.

On the other side are those who claim the issue concerns long established
law and a few unsubstantiated incidents whose facts are incomplete spread
by a person with a vendetta and reinforced by a large number of people
easily driven to hysteria.

Obviously both sides can be made to look irrational. ;-)

[Stella Starr]

Jay Maynard wrote:

>
> I strongly doubt the AOPA is in the habit of crying wolf.

Actually, I look at the Friday spam...er, newsletter, with new
skepticism since a few years ago when they expounded on the dreadful new
South Dakota requirement for a photo ID for "all pilots."

I corresponded with the state DOT aviation guy, who patiently explained
that they do ask for some local ID from in-state pilots, but who'd been
getting toasted by many out-of-staters complaining about the erroneous
impression the AOPA article gave. It's not the only time I've found
Boyer over-dramatizing a situation, like several actions by Minnesota's
Metropolitan Airports Commission, just for the sake of having an issue
that looks more controversial than it really is. "We're bravely fighting
for you again this week!"

It's a great organization. I'm just sayin'...

[John Ammeter]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> wrote:
>> Again if this issue is 7 months old why didn't it come up during the
>> Light Sport Expo this January. The only thing I can see is zzzoom
>> doesn't have a bone to pick with them. Seems to me that if this was as
>> big a deal it has been made out to be the Florida Dept of Revenue
>> would have had a field day there.
>>
>> If you read the AOPA letter to the FDOR it relates that members are "
>> concerned " about this. I still think that this goes back to one
>> person yelling fire in the theater and causing a stampede.
>
> I am general agreement with all that.
>
> Two takes:
>
> On one side are those who claim the issue is real and aircraft owners
> visiting Florida must be getting hit right and left by zealous tax
> collectors (else why would the AOPA and EAA be taking up the issue) so the
> "zoom bashers" are obviously blinded by their dislike of the fellow.
>
> On the other side are those who claim the issue concerns long established
> law and a few unsubstantiated incidents whose facts are incomplete spread
> by a person with a vendetta and reinforced by a large number of people
> easily driven to hysteria.
>
> Obviously both sides can be made to look irrational. ;-)

I vote on the side of "a person with a vendetta"

John

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:41:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> Seems to me that if this was as
> big a deal it has been made out to be the Florida Dept of Revenue
> would have had a field day there.
>
> If you read the AOPA letter to the FDOR it relates that members are "
> concerned " about this. I still think that this goes back to one
> person yelling fire in the theater and causing a stampede.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

FDOR is smart enough to realize if they go on a rampage it will likely
backfire. Note Jim's links to legislation designed to reel FDOR in....
without the rampage.

I was at Naples air this morning, an airport that flies in/out serious
hi $$$ aircraft. Their revenue base is mainly hangar, land and other
rentals. Their nervous about the possibilities and the negative press.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-27, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> On one side are those who claim the issue is real and aircraft owners
> visiting Florida must be getting hit right and left by zealous tax
> collectors (else why would the AOPA and EAA be taking up the issue) so the
> "zoom bashers" are obviously blinded by their dislike of the fellow.

This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not saying that aircraft owners must
be getting hit right and left; what I am saying is that there's fire beneath
all of the smoke, and dismissing it entirely because Zoom is raising the
issue is wrong. Not even Zoom is wrong 100% of the time.

Put another way, if Zoom came out against the current ADS-B proposal, would
that mean that it was good?

This is one case of one of Niven's Laws: "There is no idea so good that you
cannot find a fool who supports it."
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-27, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> I was at Naples air this morning, an airport that flies in/out serious
> hi $$$ aircraft. Their revenue base is mainly hangar, land and other
> rentals. Their nervous about the possibilities and the negative press.

Good. They should be leaning on FDOR to back off. Since they live and work
there, that means they're voters, and can't be brushed off quite as easily
(in theory).
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stella Starr" > wrote

> It's not the only time I've found Boyer over-dramatizing a situation,
> like several actions by Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission, just
> for the sake of having an issue that looks more controversial than it
> really is. "We're bravely fighting for you again this week!"
>
> It's a great organization. I'm just sayin'...

I'm forced to agree with you, on this "broad" concept.....

But...

Just this once! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[The Visitor]

Lawrence wrote:
> Copa has advised that Maine may tax CDN aircraft

Yeah I rad about Maine. My understanding is the plane has to be there
for at least 20 days in six months to be hit with the use tax. In a news
paper article my father sent me from Sarasota, some people paid and one
is fighting, or did plan to. A very short sighted policy as one person
did cancel a large business investment. With Florida following suit,
this will be awkward for many but I suppose they will just wait out the
six month period.

John

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jay Maynard says...

>This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not saying that aircraft owners must
>be getting hit right and left; what I am saying is that there's fire beneath
>all of the smoke, and dismissing it entirely because Zoom is raising the
>issue is wrong. Not even Zoom is wrong 100% of the time.

The overstating is being done by zoom. There is a lot of smoke and that's where
zoom operates , in the smoky grey area where he can create his own perception
out of a different reality. zoom put his own spin on this bit of reality in an
effort to harm Sun n Fun. No one said he was totally wrong ,there might be a tax
problem in Florida, it's just that his take on it was tainted by his vendetta
for Sun n Fun. You say even zoom isn't wrong 100% of the time well neither are
the zoom bashers.And we all have good reason not to trust zoom even if he seems
right. It has to do with his credibility as a journalist but that's for another
day.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility"

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-27, ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote:
> The overstating is being done by zoom. There is a lot of smoke and that's where
> zoom operates , in the smoky grey area where he can create his own perception
> out of a different reality. zoom put his own spin on this bit of reality in an
> effort to harm Sun n Fun. No one said he was totally wrong ,there might be a tax
> problem in Florida, it's just that his take on it was tainted by his vendetta
> for Sun n Fun. You say even zoom isn't wrong 100% of the time well neither are
> the zoom bashers.And we all have good reason not to trust zoom even if he seems
> right. It has to do with his credibility as a journalist but that's for another
> day.

I'm not saying the folks slamming Zoom are wrong. I understand you've got a
history there that justifies your approach to anything he says.

What I am taking exception to is that you're discounting the whole Florida
affair because of your history with him, even though other, reputable
sources are reporting the same things. If you look past your history with
Zoom, you'll see that there's still a problem, and it needs to be brought
into the light. It's not just Zoom's take on things. If it was, AOPA and EAA
wouldn't be reporting on it. If AOPA and EAA report that it's not a problem,
then and only then will I believe it's not. I don't care what Zoom has to
say about it. I do care what those two organizations say.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[BobR]

On Mar 27, 3:37*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-03-27, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > On one side are those who claim the issue is real and aircraft owners
> > visiting Florida must be getting hit right and left by zealous tax
> > collectors (else why would the AOPA and EAA be taking up the issue) so the
> > "zoom bashers" are obviously blinded by their dislike of the fellow.
>
> This is overstating the case a bit. I'm not saying that aircraft owners must
> be getting hit right and left; what I am saying is that there's fire beneath
> all of the smoke, and dismissing it entirely because Zoom is raising the
> issue is wrong. Not even Zoom is wrong 100% of the time.
>
> Put another way, if Zoom came out against the current ADS-B proposal, would
> that mean that it was good?
>
> This is one case of one of Niven's Laws: "There is no idea so good that you
> cannot find a fool who supports it."
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay,

I don't think anybody has a problem with ANN reporting the issue.
That is not a problem at all and it rightfully should be reported.
The issue that many of us have is that instead of just reporting the
problem and trying to promote a solution, ANN used it as yet another
excuse to try and destroy the Sun-N-Fun flyin. Instead of encouraging
all involved to contact Florida and others who might be able to
promote a solution, Campbell instead decided to encourage people to
stay away from Sun-N-Fun with that as an added threat.

A.N.N. and Campbell are like a stopped clock, it is 100% correct twice
a day but otherwise good for nothing.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
> I don't think anybody has a problem with ANN reporting the issue.
> That is not a problem at all and it rightfully should be reported.
> The issue that many of us have is that instead of just reporting the
> problem and trying to promote a solution, ANN used it as yet another
> excuse to try and destroy the Sun-N-Fun flyin. Instead of encouraging
> all involved to contact Florida and others who might be able to
> promote a solution, Campbell instead decided to encourage people to
> stay away from Sun-N-Fun with that as an added threat.

If you knew that you were going to get slapped with a five-figure tax bill
you otherwise wouldn't owe just for flying to Sun n Fun, would you go?

I don't care about Zoom's motives. I don't care that it was Zoom who broke
the story. I don't care about his choice of timing. I do care that there's a
problem that's real enough to get AOPA and EAA involved. If they find it's
groundless, I'll stop worrying, no matter what Zoom has to say about it.

> A.N.N. and Campbell are like a stopped clock, it is 100% correct twice
> a day but otherwise good for nothing.

Perhaps. Even so, you can't ignore this one just because Zoom reported it
because others who actually have credibility are also reporting it. If it
was just Zoom, things might well be different.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[BobR]

On Mar 27, 9:13*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
>
> > I don't think anybody has a problem with ANN reporting the issue.
> > That is not a problem at all and it rightfully should be reported.
> > The issue that many of us have is that instead of just reporting the
> > problem and trying to promote a solution, ANN used it as yet another
> > excuse to try and destroy the Sun-N-Fun flyin. *Instead of encouraging
> > all involved to contact Florida and others who might be able to
> > promote a solution, Campbell instead decided to encourage people to
> > stay away from Sun-N-Fun with that as an added threat.
>
> If you knew that you were going to get slapped with a five-figure tax bill
> you otherwise wouldn't owe just for flying to Sun n Fun, would you go?
>
> I don't care about Zoom's motives. I don't care that it was Zoom who broke
> the story. I don't care about his choice of timing. I do care that there's a
> problem that's real enough to get AOPA and EAA involved. If they find it's
> groundless, I'll stop worrying, no matter what Zoom has to say about it.
>
> > A.N.N. and Campbell are like a stopped clock, it is 100% correct twice
> > a day but otherwise good for nothing.
>
> Perhaps. Even so, you can't ignore this one just because Zoom reported it
> because others who actually have credibility are also reporting it. If it
> was just Zoom, things might well be different.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

You continue to argue that it needed to be reported and we all agree.
Nobody is ignoring the issue.

What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
and services. Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
credibility also matter.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
> What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
> damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
> was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
> and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
> and services. Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
> credibility also matter.

I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:39 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
>> What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
>> damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
>> was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
>> and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
>> and services. Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
>> credibility also matter.
>
> I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.

Welcome to the World Of BobR, the monotract-minded, blindered,
self-absorbed Debate King.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:39:24 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> On 2008-03-27, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> I was at Naples air this morning, an airport that flies in/out serious
>> hi $$$ aircraft. Their revenue base is mainly hangar, land and other
>> rentals. Their nervous about the possibilities and the negative press.
>
> Good. They should be leaning on FDOR to back off. Since they live and work
> there, that means they're voters, and can't be brushed off quite as easily
> (in theory).

They got a problem. They are looking at $50M in runway/tarmac
replacements over the next few years and FloridaDOT needs to pick up $3M
+ of it where, in the past, they would only ask for $200K max. Thru
2012, $13M from FDOT for Cap Improvements. Ouch, see the problem?

[BobR]

On Mar 27, 12:32*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:39 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:
> > On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
> >> What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
> >> damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
> >> was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
> >> and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
> >> and services. *Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
> >> credibility also matter.
>
> > I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.
>
> Welcome to the World Of BobR, the monotract-minded, blindered,
> self-absorbed Debate King.

Go learn how to fly so that you can at least appear to know what you
are talking about.

[olympusE1]

...and why do you think he waited until a couple weeks before Sun-N-
Fun to bring this up? After all, he DOES own a Glasair, registered in
a state other than Florida (look up N411AN on the FAA database) and
has operated it in Florida nearly continuously, including during the
crucial six month period after he bought it. It would be interesting
to know if HE was billed by the Florida DOR, and if so, when. (Mr.
Wanttaja, are you listening?)

As for your not caring what his motives are, allow me to give you a
little background. I worked for Campbell trying to sell advertising,
a fact of which I am deeply ashamed. What I can tell you is that for
Campbell, motive is everything. In his case there are only two
motives that count. Money and personal aggrandizement. Money from
advertisers (sometimes unwilling advertisers) who are, in many cases,
given nearly continuously good coverage on his little website for as
long as they are advertisers. (Case in point: Cirrus Design. 80
accidents, including 33 fatals, in five years. Look at where they
advertise on his page, and look at how much negative coverage they
get.) Cancel those ads and watch out.

Case in point: In the late 90s, everyone was worried (to say the
least) about the quality of design and the components supplied with
the Revolution 500 helicopter. Despite nearly universal condemnation,
Campbell's little rag, US Aviator, had nothing but good things to say
about the kit. When the owner finally turned down repeated attempts
by both Campbell and myself to sell him an ad in the magazine,
Revolution Helicopters got slammed, repeatedly, in both the magazine
and on this very forum by Mr. Campbell. Coincidence? You might think
so, but I know better. Was the criticism warranted? Yes. Was his
presentation of those criticisms timely? No. He waited until there
was no chance to get money from them, and THEN took them on.

Chuck Slusarczyk is another case in point. Campbell and his pet rat,
Juan Jimenez, have made a hobby of borderline libel of both Chuck and
his line of ultralights for literally decades. When did THAT start?
When Chuck decided not to advertise in Campbell's rag and, worst of
all, when he called Campbell's credibility into question.

In the case of his hatred of Sun-N-Fun, he likes to say that the fly-
in has been banning him from attending and therefore trying to muzzle
him because of his criticisms. The reality is far from what he
"reports." The actual reasons he has been banned (although reporters
and photographers working for him are, indeed, welcome) include
printing up fake press and parking passes for the event (of which I
have two, provided to me by Campbell, for the 1997 SNF) as well as
attempting to serve legal papers on people and companies attending and
exhibiting at the show after being told, repeatedly, not to do so. He
has also bragged (during his "terrorists are out to kill me" period)
of needing to carry a Berretta 9mm hand cannon to the show to protect
himself. I HEARD that brag, firsthand, outside the Rose Motel (where
Campbell put his staff, including me, up) on the second night of the
1997 SNF. Do I think he actually carried? Well, when I asked him to
show me the weapon (supposedly in an ankle holster) his reply was "the
only reason it comes out of the holster is if I have to use it,"
which, upon reflection, most likely means that the whole story was
just that. A story. Bottom line, it is not a matter of his
"journalistic" rights being trampled upon by the City of Lakeland and
SNF officials. THAT is just a convenient story.

Yes, the story is indeed what matters. No doubt about it. But in
Campbell's case you ALWAYS have to consider whether you are getting a
fair, objective and representative telling. In the case of anything
Sun-N-Fun related, the chances of reading something fair and objective
on ANN are somewhere between microscopically slim and none.

Al "Escalator Tag" Staats

>
> I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-27, olympusE1 > wrote:
> ...and why do you think he waited until a couple weeks before Sun-N-
> Fun to bring this up? After all, he DOES own a Glasair, registered in
> a state other than Florida (look up N411AN on the FAA database) and
> has operated it in Florida nearly continuously, including during the
> crucial six month period after he bought it. It would be interesting
> to know if HE was billed by the Florida DOR, and if so, when. (Mr.
> Wanttaja, are you listening?)

It would be. That does not change the basic story, which is about much more
than Zoom Campbell.

> As for your not caring what his motives are, allow me to give you a
> little background.

I'm sorry that so many people have had so much trouble with the guy, and
glad that our paths have never crossed.

That does not change the basic story, which is about much more than Zoom
Campbell.

(BTW, the Beretta 92, while a fine pistol, is far from a "hand cannon".)

> Yes, the story is indeed what matters. No doubt about it. But in
> Campbell's case you ALWAYS have to consider whether you are getting a
> fair, objective and representative telling. In the case of anything
> Sun-N-Fun related, the chances of reading something fair and objective
> on ANN are somewhere between microscopically slim and none.

I'm not reading it on ANN. I've never visited ANN. For that matter, I never
read US Aviator. I'm reading it from AOPA and EAA, and hearing about it in
person from Phil Boyer. ANN's credibility, while quite possibly an issue in
general (I'm not commenting one way or the other, as I don't have enough
facts to make a decision, although I can certainly see why lots of folks
find Zoom's credibility lacking), is not relevant to this story. AOPA's and
EAA's are, and they have sufficient credibility for me. The minute AOPA and
EAA picked it up, Zoom Campbell's credibility became irrelevant.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:29:16 -0700 (PDT), olympusE1 wrote:

> <snipped humongous rant on Campbell/Zoom/life>

> Al "Escalator Tag" Staats

So the OP Subject is a lie, all is safe and well in Florida right?

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:39 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
>> What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
>> damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
>> was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
>> and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
>> and services. Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
>> credibility also matter.
>
> I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

[Jim Logajan]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:39 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>> On 2008-03-27, BobR > wrote:
>>> What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
>>> damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
>>> was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
>>> and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
>>> and services. Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
>>> credibility also matter.
>>
>> I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.
>
> http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

>> http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
>
> So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
> A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
> heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

I received this from Sun n' fun which seemingly contradicts the report
by the Cirrus owner (link above).

March 21, 2008

Sun ¡¦n Fun has recently been made aware of media reports of a ¡§Florida
Tax Ripoff¡¨ and the impact this may have on the Sun ¡¦n Fun Fly-In, which
opens Tuesday, April 8, and runs through Sunday, April 13.

The reports erroneously describe ¡§non (Florida)-resident pilots who have
been caught in the FL tax trap¡¨ and who have been ¡§targeted for ¡¥use
tax¡¦ by agents of the state¡¦s Department of Revenue . . . despite the
fact that the targeted aircraft were not owned or operated by state
residents.¡¨

This is inaccurate and misleading. Sun ¡¦n Fun contacted the Florida
Department of Revenue and received a definition of the regulation in
question. Language within the Florida Tax Code quoted in the media
reports clearly indicates this tax affects ONLY those owners who have:

Purchased their airplane in another state (outside of Florida) within
the past six months but who have the aircraft titled, registered or
licensed in Florida and have not paid Florida tax on that airplane.

This DOES NOT impact Sun ¡¦n Fun Exhibitors who bring aircraft to
Lakeland.

It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners whose airplane is more than six
months old, which comprises a vast majority of aircraft being flown to
Sun ¡¦n Fun.
It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have owned their airplane more
than six months and have it titled, registered or licensed in another
state.
It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have purchased an airplane within
the past six months and have it titled, registered or licensed in
another state (other than Florida).
And it DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have purchased their
airplanes within the past six months in Florida and have paid the
appropriate tax.
The bottom line is that the Florida Tax Code in question has the
capacity to impact a minute number ¡V if any ¡V of the aircraft flying to
Lakeland for Sun ¡¦n Fun. More importantly, the Florida Department of
Revenue has assured Sun ¡¥n Fun that there will not be any agents
assigned to the Fly-In event conducting ¡§ramp checks¡¨ and that
out-of-state aircraft flying to Florida for Sun 'n Fun are not subject
to the "sales/use" tax as long as the aircraft owner is not trying to
avoid taxes owed because he/she is a Florida resident or operates a
business in Florida and uses the aircraft for that purpose.

We look forward to seeing you at Sun ¡¦n Fun!

John Burton
President
Sun ¡¥n Fun

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

>> http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
>
> So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
> A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
> heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>> http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
>> So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
>> A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
>> heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.
>
> This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
> same person/plane.
>
> Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.
>
> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html
>
> I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
> aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
> "sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.
>
> Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
> does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
> don't see the likelihood at all.
>
>
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-01, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html

Between these two, I hope this puts to rest the idea that, just because
ZoomCampbell reported it, it must be horse exhaust.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jay Maynard says...
>
>On 2008-04-01, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html
>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html
>
>Between these two, I hope this puts to rest the idea that, just because
>ZoomCampbell reported it, it must be horse exhaust.

Actually there's 3 ,the reply from Sun n Fun's Pres John Burton. What your not
getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create the
perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a lot
different.It's not what he reported but HOW he reported and spun it.

Chuck S

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

"I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction."

This is not at all correct. "Use tax" has a specific legal definition, which
doesn't refer to the "use" of a specific something.

In the context being discussed, the use tax is the amount of sales tax that
would have been collected on the transaction if it had occurred in Florida,
minus the amount of the sales tax (if any) collected by another state.

This same type of tax is frequently collected when one changes an automobile
registration from one state to another.

The purpose of these types of taxes is to prevent someone from purchasing a
big-ticket item in a low tax state, then registering/using it in a high tax
state.

Assume you live in State 'A', which has a sales tax rate of 10%. If you
bought an airplane for $100,000 in State 'A' and kept it there, you would
pay $10,000 in sales tax to State 'A'.

But if you went to State 'B', which has a sales tax rate of 5% to buy the
$100,000 airplane, you would pay $5,000 in sales tax to State 'B'.

However, if you bought the airplane in State 'B' and begin keeping/using it
in State 'A', State 'A' would then charge you a "use tax" of $5,000, or the
difference between the $5,000 sales tax you paid to State 'B' and the amount
the tax would have been had you purchased the airplane in State 'A'. Again,
this is to prevent residents of State 'A' from buying big-ticket items in
other states in order to avoid the (high) sales taxes in State 'A'.

This whole thing is nothing more than someone incorrectly interpreting some
very common tax regulations. From some of the posts I have read here and
elsewhere, this interpretation may be a deliberate attempt to create panic.

But Florida will no more try to impose a use tax if you fly your airplane
there for a two week vacation than they would if you drove your car there
for a two week vacation.



"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>> http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
>>
>> So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
>> A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
>> heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.
>
> This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
> same person/plane.
>
> Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.
>
> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html
>
> I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
> aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
> "sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.
>
> Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
> does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
> don't see the likelihood at all.
>
>

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-01, news.chi.sbcglobal.net > wrote:
> But Florida will no more try to impose a use tax if you fly your airplane
> there for a two week vacation than they would if you drove your car there
> for a two week vacation.

Unfortunately, they claim they can. From the FDoR page on sales and use tax,
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html :
-----
What Is Use Tax?

Use tax is a component of Florida's sales and use tax law. It is due on
purchases made out of state and brought into Florida within 6 months of the
purchase date.

The "use" component of sales and use tax provides uniform taxation of items
such as aircraft, which may be purchased outside Florida, but used,
hangared, or stored in the state.

Aircraft purchased and used outside Florida for more than 6 months are
generally exempt when brought into Florida, if both of the following
conditions are met:

The owner has owned the aircraft for more than 6 months.
The owner has used the aircraft in another state or states, U.S. territory,
or District of Columbia 6 months or longer prior to bringing the aircraft to
Florida.
-----
"Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:11:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
>>> So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
>>> A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
>>> heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.
>>
>> This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
>> same person/plane.
>>
>> Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.
>>
>> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_owner.html
>>
>> I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
>> aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
>> "sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.
>>
>> Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
>> does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
>> don't see the likelihood at all.
>>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html

Glad their confused too. That's where this whole mess really is.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
>> What your not
>> getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to
>> create the perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the
>> reality is a lot different
>
> I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
> legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
> in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.
>
> I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
> through your head.
>

Look, would you guys, all of you, please go do a short course on
argumnt?


Bertie

[WJRFlyBoy]

On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> What your not
> getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create the
> perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a lot
> different

I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.

I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
through your head.

[Kyle Boatright]

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
>> What your not
>> getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create
>> the
>> perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a
>> lot
>> different
>
> I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
> legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
> in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.
>
> I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
> through your head.

There is a very limited set of circumstances in which Florida will tax an
aircraft. The ANN articles implied that the circumstances are far broader
than they are in reality. Typical of the annual "Torpedo SnF " hatchet job
articles, the story in ANN didn't have a byline, didn't offer enough facts
to paint the entire picture, and was timed to cause harm to SnF.

Other than that, it was a fine article.

KB

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Maynard wrote:

..
> -----
> "Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.

It's really not. Virtually every state that has a Sales tax has a Use
tax. It is so that if you live or have an ongoing connection with a
state you can't get around paying the sales tax buy purchasing an item
in another state.

Here are some example of when a Use tax would be due.

You order from a mail order company that has no establishment in your
home state. Technically you are supposed to pay Use tax.

You have a business and are exempt from Sales tax for items that are
purchased for resale. Let's say you purchase 12 widgets. You put 11 of
them up for sale and keep one for either personal or business use. You
owe Use tax on widget number 12.

Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
written in regards to aircraft is **** poor. But the spirit behind the
law is not to charge for Use of their airspace. It is so FL residents
don't buy an aircraft in FL. Fly to some state that doesn't have a sales
tax or otherwise have a good way to get around sales taxes on aircraft
and then fly it back. What makes the issue more tricky than say a car is
that unlike a car you don't have to get a state specific license for an
aircraft which shows that the car is registered and taxed somewhere else.

There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
getting taxed.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-02, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> "Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.
> It's really not. Virtually every state that has a Sales tax has a Use
> tax. It is so that if you live or have an ongoing connection with a
> state you can't get around paying the sales tax buy purchasing an item
> in another state.

Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)

> Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
> written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.

It's the letter of the law that counts.

> But the spirit behind the law is not to charge for Use of their airspace.

Actually, the Minnesota use tax *does* intend to charge for use of the
airports and airspace: it's due if an aircraft uses either for more than 60
days out of the first year. Fortunately, they do only charge it for
Minnesota owners. (The provision is for cases where a Minnesota owner bases
the aircraft in another state; I could do that, for example, living as close
to Iowa as I do.)

> There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
> in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
> getting taxed.

There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-04-02, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>> "Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.
>> It's really not. Virtually every state that has a Sales tax has a Use
>> tax. It is so that if you live or have an ongoing connection with a
>> state you can't get around paying the sales tax buy purchasing an item
>> in another state.
>
> Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
> I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)
>
>> Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
>> written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.
>
> It's the letter of the law that counts.
>

But not only Florida's law counts. There are Federal Constitutional
issues here that negate a state from taxing a citizen from another state
in the only way this is going to effect you or I.



>> But the spirit behind the law is not to charge for Use of their airspace.
>
> Actually, the Minnesota use tax *does* intend to charge for use of the
> airports and airspace: it's due if an aircraft uses either for more than 60
> days out of the first year. Fortunately, they do only charge it for
> Minnesota owners. (The provision is for cases where a Minnesota owner bases
> the aircraft in another state; I could do that, for example, living as close
> to Iowa as I do.)
>
>> There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
>> in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
>> getting taxed.
>
> There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
> right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.

CYA all around. Never bad idea.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>> >
>> >> What your not
>> >> getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to
>> >> create the perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when
>> >> the reality is a lot different
>> >
>> > I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has
>> > the legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions
>> > outlined in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.
>> >
>> > I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this
>> > concept through your head.
>> >
>>
>> Look, would you guys, all of you, please go do a short course on
>> argumnt?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> You want room 3A, just along the hall. It's being hit on the head
> lessons in here.
>
>
I should have expected that.


( Good set up for your next Python gag!)


Bertie

[Tim Ward[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> >
> >> What your not
> >> getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to
> >> create the perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the
> >> reality is a lot different
> >
> > I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
> > legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
> > in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.
> >
> > I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
> > through your head.
> >
>
> Look, would you guys, all of you, please go do a short course on
> argumnt?
>
>
> Bertie


You want room 3A, just along the hall. It's being hit on the head lessons in
here.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:01:59 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>>
>>> What your not
>>> getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create
>>> the
>>> perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a
>>> lot
>>> different
>>
>> I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
>> legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
>> in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.
>>
>> I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
>> through your head.
>
> There is a very limited set of circumstances in which Florida will tax an
> aircraft. The ANN articles implied that the circumstances are far broader
> than they are in reality. Typical of the annual "Torpedo SnF " hatchet job
> articles, the story in ANN didn't have a byline, didn't offer enough facts
> to paint the entire picture, and was timed to cause harm to SnF.
>
> Other than that, it was a fine article.
>
> KB

No disagreement with any of this, Kyle.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:20:48 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

>> Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
>> I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)
>>
>>> Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
>>> written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.
>>
>> It's the letter of the law that counts.
>>
>
> But not only Florida's law counts. There are Federal Constitutional
> issues here that negate a state from taxing a citizen from another state
> in the only way this is going to effect you or I.

So you get the privilege of paying the use tax *and* expending the $$$
suing the State Of Florida for violating constitutional law?

This is good?

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:17:16 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
> in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
> getting taxed.

According to FDOR, they have and will continue to do just that.

FYI, you don't have to bring the aircraft to FL either.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_dealer.html

Under most conditions, use tax is due on aircraft brought into Florida
within 6 months from the date of purchase. *However, use tax may be
immediately due if any of the following conditions are met:*

* The aircraft is owned by a Florida resident.
* The aircraft is owned by a corporation and used by a corporate
officer or director who is a Florida resident.
* The aircraft is owned by a corporate entity that has an individual
vested with authority to participate in the management, direction, or
control of the entity's affairs who is a resident of or makes his or her
permanent residence in this state.
* The aircraft is owned by a person, corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, joint adventure, association, syndicate, business
trust, trust, estate, or other form of artificial entity that is not
engaged in Florida in any employment, trade, business, or profession in
which the aircraft will be used.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:20:48 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
>>> Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
>>> I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)
>>>
>>>> Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
>>>> written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.
>>> It's the letter of the law that counts.
>>>
>> But not only Florida's law counts. There are Federal Constitutional
>> issues here that negate a state from taxing a citizen from another state
>> in the only way this is going to effect you or I.
>
> So you get the privilege of paying the use tax *and* expending the $$$
> suing the State Of Florida for violating constitutional law?
>
> This is good?

No the point is that Florida's lawyers are well aware of the
Constitutional issues and aren't violating and aren't charging you as a
non-Floridian for flying to SNF.

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> Actually, the Minnesota use tax *does* intend to charge for use of the
> airports and airspace: it's due if an aircraft uses either for more
> than 60 days out of the first year.

Speaking only of use of the airspace over a state (e.g. overflight but
no landing), there is a federal law I believe prohibits a state from
charging any taxes or fees for such a transit:

" (b) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section and section 40117 of this title, a State, a political
subdivision of a State, and any person that has purchased or leased an
airport under section 47134 of this title may not levy or collect a tax,
fee, head charge, or other charge on--
(1) an individual traveling in air commerce;
(2) the transportation of an individual traveling in air commerce;
(3) the sale of air transportation; or
(4) the gross receipts from that air commerce or transportation.

(c) Aircraft Taking Off or Landing in State.--A State or political
subdivision of a State may levy or collect a tax on or related to a
flight of a commercial aircraft or an activity or service on the
aircraft only if the aircraft takes off or lands in the State or
political subdivision as part of the flight."

Additional context may be found here (in case I have misinterpreted
the law):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+49USC40116

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:17:16 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
>> There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
>> in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
>> getting taxed.
>
> According to FDOR, they have and will continue to do just that.
>
> FYI, you don't have to bring the aircraft to FL either.
>
> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_dealer.html
>
> Under most conditions, use tax is due on aircraft brought into Florida
> within 6 months from the date of purchase. *However, use tax may be
> immediately due if any of the following conditions are met:*
>
> * The aircraft is owned by a Florida resident.
> * The aircraft is owned by a corporation and used by a corporate
> officer or director who is a Florida resident.
> * The aircraft is owned by a corporate entity that has an individual
> vested with authority to participate in the management, direction, or
> control of the entity's affairs who is a resident of or makes his or her
> permanent residence in this state.
> * The aircraft is owned by a person, corporation, limited liability
> company, partnership, joint adventure, association, syndicate, business
> trust, trust, estate, or other form of artificial entity that is not
> engaged in Florida in any employment, trade, business, or profession in
> which the aircraft will be used.


I think here is the problem. The you are looking at is a page designed
for Florida aircraft brokers and dealers and is written in such a way as
to assume that that is who is reading it. Take for example this paragraph...

"Aircraft dealers and brokers must register with DOR to collect and
remit sales tax prior to beginning business in this state. Most aircraft
sellers must also register to collect and remit solid waste fees on
sales of new tires and sales of new lead-acid batteries. You can
register online; go to the Department's Internet site at
www.myflorida.com/dor and click on e-Services. If you do not have
Internet access, you can complete a paper Application to Collect and/or
Report Tax in Florida (Form DR-1)."


If you take that word for word it would make it look like an Arkansas
broker or dealer would be in violation of Florida law if he doesn't
register there even if the dealer had no business in FL.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" <> wrote

> There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
> right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.

Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
inquiry?

They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. None. Zip. Nada.

No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. No Ramp Checks.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-02, Morgans > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" <> wrote
>> There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
>> right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
> Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
> inquiry?
> They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. None. Zip. Nada.
> No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. No Ramp Checks.

So they claim, at least. I'm not sure I trust them. Would you trust the IRS
if they made a similar statement? EAA has all the reason in the world not to
publicize things that would hurt Sun n Fun, yet they publicized this one.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:37:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:17:16 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>>> There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
>>> in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
>>> getting taxed.
>>
>> According to FDOR, they have and will continue to do just that.
>>
>> FYI, you don't have to bring the aircraft to FL either.
>>
>> http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sut_aircraft_dealer.html
>>
>> Under most conditions, use tax is due on aircraft brought into Florida
>> within 6 months from the date of purchase. *However, use tax may be
>> immediately due if any of the following conditions are met:*
>>
>> * The aircraft is owned by a Florida resident.
>> * The aircraft is owned by a corporation and used by a corporate
>> officer or director who is a Florida resident.
>> * The aircraft is owned by a corporate entity that has an individual
>> vested with authority to participate in the management, direction, or
>> control of the entity's affairs who is a resident of or makes his or her
>> permanent residence in this state.
>> * The aircraft is owned by a person, corporation, limited liability
>> company, partnership, joint adventure, association, syndicate, business
>> trust, trust, estate, or other form of artificial entity that is not
>> engaged in Florida in any employment, trade, business, or profession in
>> which the aircraft will be used.
>
> I think here is the problem. The you are looking at is a page designed
> for Florida aircraft brokers and dealers and is written in such a way as
> to assume that that is who is reading it

Gig, I am aware of what pages I am reading, I have a notebook of printed
material as a reference. On top of that, I am purchasing a personal and
a business plane, will be attending SnF as it is "up the street" from
me. I have a lot at stake and being wrong isn't a financial option.

Bottom line: aviation accounting and counsel, FDOR, AOPA and EAA have
all expressed the same thing. The jeopardy is there, it is real and the
chances of enforcement are higher than ever.

That's it.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:46:51 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
> inquiry?
>
> They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. None. Zip. Nada.
>
> No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. No Ramp Checks.
> --
> Jim in NC

¡§Generally, please know that the focus of the Florida Department of
Revenue¡¦s use tax enforcement activities is on the aircraft with a
significant connection to Florida, not nonresidents with no Florida
connection only here on a temporary basis, and we will not be at Sun ¡¦n
Fun; we do not use ¡¥fly-ins¡¦ as enforcement activities,¡¨ said George
Hamm, the Department of Revenue¡¦s chief assistant general counsel.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.pdf

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" <> wrote
>
>
>>There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
>>right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
>
>
> Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
> inquiry?
>
> They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. None. Zip. Nada.
>
> No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. No Ramp Checks.


And thus no lynchings...



--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

[[email protected]]

On Apr 2, 5:53*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-04-02, Morgans > wrote:
>
> > "Jay Maynard" <> wrote
> >> There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
> >> right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
> > *Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
> > inquiry?
> > They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. *None. *Zip. *Nada.
> > No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. *No Ramp Checks.
>
> So they claim, at least. I'm not sure I trust them. Would you trust the IRS
> if they made a similar statement? EAA has all the reason in the world not to
> publicize things that would hurt Sun n Fun, yet they publicized this one.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)



There is a pretty simple solution if you are this worried ,stay
home!!! Not one word of this was murmured at the LSA Expo in January.
The main pot stirrer in this episode has a problem with SnF and not
the Sebring show at least so far.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Swecret World Hq

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:53:29 GMT, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

> On 2008-04-02, Morgans > wrote:
> > "Jay Maynard" <> wrote
> >> There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
> >> right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
> > Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
> > inquiry?
> > They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. None. Zip. Nada.
> > No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. No Ramp Checks.
>
> So they claim, at least. I'm not sure I trust them. Would you trust the IRS
> if they made a similar statement? EAA has all the reason in the world not to
> publicize things that would hurt Sun n Fun, yet they publicized this one.

I've been generally staying out of this one, but I've got a few comments here.

1. Yes, if a government agency (even the IRS) put out a press release saying
"We won't do 'X' next month," (where 'X' is a very specific action), I believe
they won't. The mainstream media gets REAL excited when they catch government
reps in a bald-faced lie, and doing so is considered a CLM among government
press agents. Dodge, equivocate, yes, but saying "We won't do 'X' next month"
is pretty definitive.

2. I further believe the Florida tax folks in this case, as tourism is a major
Florida industry. I don't think the state and local governments would stand for
it if the tax department decided to disrupt a major event that brings hundreds
of thousands of well-heeled individuals to the state every year.

3. EAA and AOPA's messages are a reaction is due to their *member's* concerns,
not an indicator as to how serious the threat to Sun-N-Fun really was. If the
subject is at least *possible*, they're going to respond to it if enough of
their members ask. And as AvWeb has pointed out, Florida is not the first state
to institute this sort of policy.

Jim Campbell has been printing or posting an annual anti-SnF rant every March
for over ten years now, and having just lost his second lawsuit against them
probably hasn't improved his attitude. He also just got nailed by the Florida
tax folks for a tax lien dating back to the US Aviator days. I suspect the
opportunity to slam both SnF and the Florida tax folks was heaven-sent.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, > wrote:
> There is a pretty simple solution if you are this worried ,stay
> home!!! Not one word of this was murmured at the LSA Expo in January.
> The main pot stirrer in this episode has a problem with SnF and not
> the Sebring show at least so far.

There are at least two "main pot stirrers", and Phil Boyer doesn't have a
problem with Sun n Fun, AFAIK.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>Jim Campbell has been printing or posting an annual anti-SnF rant every March
>for over ten years now, and having just lost his second lawsuit against them
>probably hasn't improved his attitude. He also just got nailed by the Florida
>tax folks for a tax lien dating back to the US Aviator days. I suspect the
>opportunity to slam both SnF and the Florida tax folks was heaven-sent.
>
What tax lien was that?? It's true that when ever he critizes a company or some
agency he's got a dog in the fight. He's never gone after anyone unless they've
crossed him then he uses the power of the press.Thank God for the Internet.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> 3. EAA and AOPA's messages are a reaction is due to their *member's* concerns,
> not an indicator as to how serious the threat to Sun-N-Fun really was. If the
> subject is at least *possible*, they're going to respond to it if enough of
> their members ask. And as AvWeb has pointed out, Florida is not the first state
> to institute this sort of policy.

Indeed. OTOH, both organizations are going to try to debunk it before
publishing. They didn't, or else they'd have said so.

> Jim Campbell has been printing or posting an annual anti-SnF rant every March
> for over ten years now, and having just lost his second lawsuit against them
> probably hasn't improved his attitude. He also just got nailed by the Florida
> tax folks for a tax lien dating back to the US Aviator days. I suspect the
> opportunity to slam both SnF and the Florida tax folks was heaven-sent.

Undoubtedly. That doesn't make it automatically wrong, as several folks here
suggest.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jay Maynard says...
>> Jim Campbell has been printing or posting an annual anti-SnF rant every March
>> for over ten years now, and having just lost his second lawsuit against them
>>probably hasn't improved his attitude. He also just got nailed by the Florida
>> tax folks for a tax lien dating back to the US Aviator days. I suspect the
>> opportunity to slam both SnF and the Florida tax folks was heaven-sent.
>
>Undoubtedly. That doesn't make it automatically wrong, as several folks here
>suggest.

Nobody is saying he's automatically wrong what we're saying is that many times
what zoom says is suspect as to details ,motive and spin. He will never hesitate
to use the power of the press to promote his agenda. There is a kernel of truth
in this story which could have stood on it's own as it did months ago.

Now as he usually does he prints the story with enough facts to seem
truthful,adds spin to obfuscate the facts ,confuse the details and then promote
his anti Sun n Fun agenda.

So far I've seen "one" case detailing a problem ,hardly an epidemic, some
confusion from a couple of alphabet orgs, a clarification from the President of
Sun n Fun who has more at stake then any of the aforementioned orgs ,stating the
SnF will not be targeted by the tax guys.
When it comes to credibility zoom is as truthful as a politician.

I'm going to be there with a booth and I bet no one will be cited for taxes
..Wanna bet? :-)

Chuck S

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:03:17 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:53:29 GMT, Jay Maynard >
>wrote:
>
>> On 2008-04-02, Morgans > wrote:
>> > "Jay Maynard" <> wrote
>> >> There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
>> >> right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
>> > Did you not see what the Florida guberment put out, in response to AOPA's
>> > inquiry?
>> > They WILL NOT have a presence at Sun and Fun. None. Zip. Nada.
>> > No trying to catch anyone with an untaxed plane. No Ramp Checks.
>>
>> So they claim, at least. I'm not sure I trust them. Would you trust the IRS
>> if they made a similar statement? EAA has all the reason in the world not to
>> publicize things that would hurt Sun n Fun, yet they publicized this one.
>
>I've been generally staying out of this one, but I've got a few comments here.
>
>1. Yes, if a government agency (even the IRS) put out a press release saying
>"We won't do 'X' next month," (where 'X' is a very specific action), I believe
>they won't. The mainstream media gets REAL excited when they catch government
>reps in a bald-faced lie, and doing so is considered a CLM among government
>press agents. Dodge, equivocate, yes, but saying "We won't do 'X' next month"
>is pretty definitive.
>
>2. I further believe the Florida tax folks in this case, as tourism is a major
>Florida industry. I don't think the state and local governments would stand for
>it if the tax department decided to disrupt a major event that brings hundreds
>of thousands of well-heeled individuals to the state every year.
>
>3. EAA and AOPA's messages are a reaction is due to their *member's* concerns,
>not an indicator as to how serious the threat to Sun-N-Fun really was. If the
>subject is at least *possible*, they're going to respond to it if enough of
>their members ask. And as AvWeb has pointed out, Florida is not the first state
>to institute this sort of policy.
>
>Jim Campbell has been printing or posting an annual anti-SnF rant every March
>for over ten years now, and having just lost his second lawsuit against them
>probably hasn't improved his attitude. He also just got nailed by the Florida
>tax folks for a tax lien dating back to the US Aviator days. I suspect the
>opportunity to slam both SnF and the Florida tax folks was heaven-sent.
>
>Ron Wanttaja


Anything comong from the mouth or pen or keyboard of Jim Campbell is
automatically suspect, by definition. If it has ANYTHING, REMOTELY to
do with Sun'n Fun, it is no longer suspect, but absolutely, without a
doubt, to be discounted as the ravings of an angry psycopathic
sociopath.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada <> wrote:
> Anything comong from the mouth or pen or keyboard of Jim Campbell is
> automatically suspect, by definition. If it has ANYTHING, REMOTELY to
> do with Sun'n Fun, it is no longer suspect, but absolutely, without a
> doubt, to be discounted as the ravings of an angry psycopathic
> sociopath.

This is precisely what I've been arguing against. If Zoom said the sky was
blue, would you say it was green?

If it was just Zoom, I'd be highly skeptical. It's not just Zoom.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:12:15 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-04-03, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada <> wrote:
>> Anything comong from the mouth or pen or keyboard of Jim Campbell is
>> automatically suspect, by definition. If it has ANYTHING, REMOTELY to
>> do with Sun'n Fun, it is no longer suspect, but absolutely, without a
>> doubt, to be discounted as the ravings of an angry psycopathic
>> sociopath.
>
>This is precisely what I've been arguing against. If Zoom said the sky was
>blue, would you say it was green?
>
>If it was just Zoom, I'd be highly skeptical. It's not just Zoom.


Not JUST zoom, but there are some out there who think Zoom is da bomb,
and will repeat, support whatever he says.

Get the facts (you won't get them from Zoom) then assess what the
danger is.

Florida can not tax a plane or any other item NOT owned or controlled
by "Floridians" - they define who a "Floridian" is. If you have no
business presence in Florida, own no property there, and do not have a
"permanent" address there, it is pretty unlikely they would have a leg
to stand on taxing your proiperty.

If you are, by their definition a "floridian" and their law says a tax
must be paid on an item brought into the state, you PAY THE TAX. If
you try to get away without paying and get caught, you pay the TAX
plus a PENALTY.
No different in that situation than in any other state, province, or
country.

Florida may have, or may not have, more taxes than other
jurisdictions.
However, if they say, as they have, that they will have NO enforcement
presence at Sun 'n Fun, you can bank on it.
After publicly stating they will not, they have NO CHANCE of winning
in court if they try to enforce a tax at that venue. ANd the court of
Public Opinion would crucify them. In the current financial
environment they need all the Positive Press they can get, and all the
tourist dollars. It would be nothing short of suicide economically to
do anything stupid.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada <> wrote:
> Not JUST zoom, but there are some out there who think Zoom is da bomb,
> and will repeat, support whatever he says.

I'm not one of them, and anyone who thinks I am is just plain wrong.

> Get the facts (you won't get them from Zoom) then assess what the
> danger is.

I'm watching AOPA and EAA. I think they're trustworthy. I haven't even read
Zoom's version of the story.

> Florida can not tax a plane or any other item NOT owned or controlled
> by "Floridians" - they define who a "Floridian" is. If you have no
> business presence in Florida, own no property there, and do not have a
> "permanent" address there, it is pretty unlikely they would have a leg
> to stand on taxing your proiperty.

However, they appear to have done it anyway, based on the stories that have
been posted here.

> However, if they say, as they have, that they will have NO enforcement
> presence at Sun 'n Fun, you can bank on it.

Nobody can bank on anything a government says when it says that it will pass
on collecting tax revenue.

> After publicly stating they will not, they have NO CHANCE of winning
> in court if they try to enforce a tax at that venue. ANd the court of
> Public Opinion would crucify them. In the current financial
> environment they need all the Positive Press they can get, and all the
> tourist dollars. It would be nothing short of suicide economically to
> do anything stupid.

You're assuming that governments act sensibly. Too often, they don't.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote:
> Nobody is saying he's automatically wrong what we're saying is that many
> times what zoom says is suspect as to details ,motive and spin. He will
> never hesitate to use the power of the press to promote his agenda. There
> is a kernel of truth in this story which could have stood on it's own as
> it did months ago.

None of this matters in the slightest. It's not Zoom's story any more, if
indeed it ever was.

> Now as he usually does he prints the story with enough facts to seem
> truthful,adds spin to obfuscate the facts ,confuse the details and then
> promote his anti Sun n Fun agenda.

I don't care. I'm not getting my information from Zoom, and all of this
anti-Zoom argumentation has exactly zero to do with the story.

> So far I've seen "one" case detailing a problem ,hardly an epidemic, some
> confusion from a couple of alphabet orgs, a clarification from the President of
> Sun n Fun who has more at stake then any of the aforementioned orgs ,stating the
> SnF will not be targeted by the tax guys.
> When it comes to credibility zoom is as truthful as a politician.

Yet you seem to believe the Florida tax people, even though they're as bad
as politicians.

> I'm going to be there with a booth and I bet no one will be cited for
> .taxes Wanna bet? :-)

I'd love to be there and see for myself, but I'm going to be working, darn
it. In any event, I'm not the one running the risk. If you think the risk is
acceptable, then go, have fun, and make money, with my blessings (not like
you need them, but still...).

My roommate's dad is going to SnF. I may well go there myself next year,
with airplane. (By then, I'll have paid Minnesota's use tax, which is higher
than what Florida charges, so I'll be immune even if this does prove to be
real.) I understand it's a great time. I hope Florida does come to its
senses and casts into law and regulation that they will only attempt to
collect tax from Florida residents. Until that time, considering the risk
that they will try to collect tax from nonresidents with shiny new airplanes
is merely prudent.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[BobR]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-04-03, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada <> wrote:
> > Anything comong from the mouth or pen or keyboard of Jim Campbell is
> > automatically suspect, by definition. If it has ANYTHING, REMOTELY to
> > do with Sun'n Fun, it is no longer suspect, but absolutely, without a
> > doubt, to be discounted as the ravings of an angry psycopathic
> > sociopath.
>
> This is precisely what I've been arguing against. If Zoom said the sky was
> blue, would you say it was green?
>

NO but I would damn sure verify that it was blue and never ever accept
his word for it.

The difference is that if YOU told me it was blue...I would probably
accept your word for it until you were proven wrong. Even if proven
wrong, I would probably accept your statements in the future unless
you were proven to be lying repeatedly and for your own purposes. In
other words, I accept honest mistakes but not intentional
fabrications. Once I lose trust in your statements, your credibility
is gone and everything you say in the future is suspect and not to be
accepted. That is what has happened with many people here, we have
experienced the lies and fabrications of the past from Campbell and
now all credibility is lost.

No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.

So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
without justification.


> If it was just Zoom, I'd be highly skeptical. It's not just Zoom.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
> No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
> vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
> without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
> story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
> publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
> started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
> silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.
>
> So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
> without justification.

All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
>> No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
>> vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
>> without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
>> story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
>> publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
>> started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
>> silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.
>>
>> So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
>> without justification.
>
> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.


Here's how this all played out.

1. Fl DOF writes a poorly worded website designed to read by FLORIDA
aircraft brokers and dealers.

2. Zoom publishes his story that the sky is falling.

3. Lots of people read that the sky is falling.

4. A subset of the people mentioned in 3 are AOPA and EAA members so
they call/e-mail AOPA and EAA to see if the sky is falling.

5. The EAA and AOPA look outside and see that the sky is not falling but
need conformation from the FL DOF to prove the sky is not falling.

6. The FL DOF being the same bunch of idiots that produced the poorly
worded website to begin with are, as mentioned above idiots, and won't
come out and say that they have no power to tax someone that has no
connection with Florida other than flying an airplane there because it
is the FL DOF job to drag in as much money as they possible can and they
might some day figure out how to do just that. But they so have the gust
to at least say they aren't going to be camped out at SNF.

Now let's look at the chain and see what could have been removed and
there be no problem.

#1 No, sure they could have written the page better but it is correct if
read by the people it is aimed at.

#3. No, that's what the Internet is for.

#4 & #5 No, that's what the EAA & AOPA is for.

#6 No, They are state employees.

That leaves #2.

[BobR]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
> > No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
> > vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
> > without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
> > story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
> > publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
> > started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
> > silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.
> >
> > So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
> > without justification.
>
> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
> --

And nobody is arguing that point. Only Zoom has tied it to Sun-N-Fun
as justification for ending that even. The response from EAA and AOPA
were both printed after the story from Zoom and I suspect in response
to concerns raised by that story. The story was previously reported
without reference to Sun-N-Fun and with little concern almost a year
ago and was drug out only to use as an excuse to attack Sun-N-Fun yet
again.

I also have to wonder why you are putting such effort into defending
Zoom's story when admittedly you have never even read the story. If
you don't know the tone and scope of his report and how he used it to
try and throw a shadow over a great flyin...why the defense? Is it
your contention that any publication can print anything they want as
long as there is some element of fact in the story?



> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[BobR]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
> > On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
> >> No credible publication should be accepted when used as a personal
> >> vehicle for attacking ones perceived enemy's in print for public use
> >> without providing the victims a venue for debate or to counter the
> >> story. Campbell has used his printed magazine and now his web based
> >> publication for just that purpose for a long time. When people
> >> started using the usenet to counter some of his lies, he tried to
> >> silence them with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.
> >>
> >> So if people here don't seem to accept anything he prints, it is not
> >> without justification.
> >
> > All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
>
>
> Here's how this all played out.
>
> 1. Fl DOF writes a poorly worded website designed to read by FLORIDA
> aircraft brokers and dealers.
>
> 2. Zoom publishes his story that the sky is falling.
>
> 3. Lots of people read that the sky is falling.
>
> 4. A subset of the people mentioned in 3 are AOPA and EAA members so
> they call/e-mail AOPA and EAA to see if the sky is falling.
>
> 5. The EAA and AOPA look outside and see that the sky is not falling but
> need conformation from the FL DOF to prove the sky is not falling.
>
> 6. The FL DOF being the same bunch of idiots that produced the poorly
> worded website to begin with are, as mentioned above idiots, and won't
> come out and say that they have no power to tax someone that has no
> connection with Florida other than flying an airplane there because it
> is the FL DOF job to drag in as much money as they possible can and they
> might some day figure out how to do just that. But they so have the gust
> to at least say they aren't going to be camped out at SNF.
>
> Now let's look at the chain and see what could have been removed and
> there be no problem.
>
> #1 No, sure they could have written the page better but it is correct if
> read by the people it is aimed at.
>
> #3. No, that's what the Internet is for.
>
> #4 & #5 No, that's what the EAA & AOPA is for.
>
> #6 No, They are state employees.
>
> That leaves #2.

Well Said!

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
>> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
> And nobody is arguing that point.

Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?

> I also have to wonder why you are putting such effort into defending
> Zoom's story when admittedly you have never even read the story. If
> you don't know the tone and scope of his report and how he used it to
> try and throw a shadow over a great flyin...why the defense? Is it
> your contention that any publication can print anything they want as
> long as there is some element of fact in the story?

No. I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the story
to the substance. Far too many folks are arguing that it must be BS because
Zoom reported it to try to slam SnF. That's simply not relevant. It became
irrelevant the moment AOPA reported it - unless you're arguing that,
somehow, Zoom led them and EAA down the garden path and they did no checking
on their own. In effect, the detractors are slamming AOPA and EAA's
credibility because of Zoom, and that's totally unwarranted.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the
> story to the substance.

But I have looked past the originator of the story.

There appeared to me to be no substance to the claims and implications in
the original or subsequent stores that there were large numbers of non-
Floridian owners being hit with sales tax. It cited only one possibly
verified instance. (Due to someone who purchased their plane in Florida,
took it out of the state, and returned to Florida in it within 6 months of
purchase.)

How many other cases are you aware of that I am not?

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:04:18 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> I'm just trying to get people to look past the originator of the
>> story to the substance.
>
>But I have looked past the originator of the story.
>
>There appeared to me to be no substance to the claims and implications in
>the original or subsequent stores that there were large numbers of non-
>Floridian owners being hit with sales tax. It cited only one possibly
>verified instance. (Due to someone who purchased their plane in Florida,
>took it out of the state, and returned to Florida in it within 6 months of
>purchase.)

The Meridian was not purchased in Florida, it was purchased in one of
the Carolinas. Even if he took delivery in Florida and stayed for the
5 day SimCom initial he still would have had 3 or 4 days of the 10
day sales-tax exempt affadavit he would have filled out to leave the
state and not get taxed. It would be interesting to understand more
about why he supposedly gave up persuing the matter. Didn't someone
post that they knew his attorney and was going to see if they could
find out?

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
> >> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
> > And nobody is arguing that point.
>
> Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?

Past repeated performance?

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
>> >> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
>> > And nobody is arguing that point.
>> Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
> Past repeated performance?

Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[BobR]

On Apr 3, 9:59*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
> >> >> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
> >> > And nobody is arguing that point.
> >> Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
> > Past repeated performance?
>
> Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

You are RIGHT! Zoom is just like a broken clock...right twice a day
but otherwise useless. The only problem is that unless you know
exactly when he is right, what the hell good does it do?

[John Ammeter]

He isn't always wrong... kind of like a broken clock... only right twice
a day...

His problem is that too many of us have seen him lie and fabricate too
many times to ever believe him again.

John

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
>>>>> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
>>>> And nobody is arguing that point.
>>> Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
>> Past repeated performance?
>
> Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
I hope Florida does come to its
> senses and casts into law and regulation that they will only attempt to
> collect tax from Florida residents. Until that time, considering the risk
> that they will try to collect tax from nonresidents with shiny new
> airplanes
> is merely prudent.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay, I'm not sure I get that point. That seems a chicken little to me. How
do I know that states that I fly over on my way to Florida are not scoping
tail numbers to send me a use tax bill for being in their airspace. I
haven't heard anything to the contrary and you never know what desperate
politicians will do. The prudent thing would be to stay out of their
airspace.

Looking at any official statement (as opposed to Jim's version or other news
sources that add their own sense of panic), there does not seem to be any
real reason for concern.

(Trimmed groups)
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Travis Marlatte]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> I'm watching AOPA and EAA. I think they're trustworthy. I haven't even
> read
> Zoom's version of the story.

And they both say that there is no concern, right?

> However, they appear to have done it anyway, based on the stories that
> have
> been posted here.

Usenet is less reliable for fact than the evening news. Besides, I haven't
seen any factual based story here that supports the claim that Florida is
out to tax anyone any different that other states.

> Nobody can bank on anything a government says when it says that it will
> pass
> on collecting tax revenue.

I'll agree that you can't bank on it but I can make reasonable decisions
with some level of confidence based on the wording of their tax law and
their publicly stated interpretation.


>
>> After publicly stating they will not, they have NO CHANCE of winning
>> in court if they try to enforce a tax at that venue. ANd the court of
>> Public Opinion would crucify them. In the current financial
>> environment they need all the Positive Press they can get, and all the
>> tourist dollars. It would be nothing short of suicide economically to
>> do anything stupid.
>
> You're assuming that governments act sensibly. Too often, they don't.

I have to agree with Jay, here. I don't really agree with the absoluteness
of "NO CHANCE" and the impact of a public outcry would likely be unforseen
backlash rather than a calculated risk in their decision.

"Unlikely" or "Probably not" is about as far as I'm will to go. However,
there is no reason for them to do so. It would be much more efficient for
them to sit in front of a computer and compare FAA plane registrations with
pilot addresses. Ooo. Did I say that out loud?
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>
>
>>On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
>>
>>>>All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
>>>
>>>And nobody is arguing that point.
>>
>>Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
>
>
> Past repeated performance?


Like Jim says,

Credibility is always about credibility...


Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

[Travis Marlatte]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be
> bogus"?

I haven't seen that kind of statement. What I have seen stated is that no
realiable source is supporting the statements that he made plus he has
proven himself a good story teller, therefore it's bogus.

> somehow, Zoom led them and EAA down the garden path and they did no
> checking
> on their own. In effect, the detractors are slamming AOPA and EAA's
> credibility because of Zoom, and that's totally unwarranted.

What did I miss? Did AOPA and EAA publish his story as fact? What I read put
the possibility out there and presented information that put it in
perspective. Seems like a reasonable approach.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-04, John Ammeter > wrote:
> His problem is that too many of us have seen him lie and fabricate too
> many times to ever believe him again.

So don't believe him. Believe AOPA and EAA.

As it happens, AOPA had an item in this week's newsletter, saying they don't
think there's a problem. I'll take their word for it. See
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html for the article.

Note that the letter they quote from the Florida Department of Revenue,
while saying that they are working to change the law, includes language that
confirms the original story:

"If an aircraft is purchased in another state by a nonresident and brought
here for repair, training, or business use within 6 months of purchase, a
use tax may be due."

If they weren't going to charge the tax, why would they say that?

It's not about Zoom. It quit being about Zoom the moment AOPA and EAA
reported it. Zoom is totally irrelevant to this story.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-04, Travis Marlatte > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm watching AOPA and EAA. I think they're trustworthy. I haven't even
>> read Zoom's version of the story.
> And they both say that there is no concern, right?

Now, they do. They didn't originally.
>
> "Unlikely" or "Probably not" is about as far as I'm will to go. However,
> there is no reason for them to do so. It would be much more efficient for
> them to sit in front of a computer and compare FAA plane registrations with
> pilot addresses. Ooo. Did I say that out loud?

You're assuming they act efficiently...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:41:49 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-04-04, John Ammeter > wrote:
>> His problem is that too many of us have seen him lie and fabricate too
>> many times to ever believe him again.
>
>So don't believe him. Believe AOPA and EAA.
>
>As it happens, AOPA had an item in this week's newsletter, saying they don't
>think there's a problem. I'll take their word for it. See
>http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html for the article.
>
>Note that the letter they quote from the Florida Department of Revenue,
>while saying that they are working to change the law, includes language that
>confirms the original story:
>
>"If an aircraft is purchased in another state by a nonresident and brought
>here for repair, training, or business use within 6 months of purchase, a
>use tax may be due."


Emphasize the MAY.

>
>If they weren't going to charge the tax, why would they say that?

Because under certain circumstances, under the current law, there
COULD be a tax liability incurred. They are saying coming to Sun 'N
Fun this year will NOT be one of those circumstances. You believe them
when they say some circumstances MAY incur a tax penalty, believe them
when they say coming to Sun 'N Fun isn't one of those circumstances.
>
>It's not about Zoom. It quit being about Zoom the moment AOPA and EAA
>reported it. Zoom is totally irrelevant to this story.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-04-04, Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >> On 2008-04-03, BobR > wrote:
> >> >> All of this would be relevant if it was just Zoom. It's not just Zoom.
> >> > And nobody is arguing that point.
> >> Then why are folks saying "Zoom first told the story, so it must be bogus"?
> > Past repeated performance?
>
> Aw, cmon. Nobody's perfect. Not even Zoom is perfectly wrong.

But he works so *hard* at it when he gets riled up.

[Stella Starr]

Jay Maynard wrote:

>
> It's not about Zoom.

You keep saying that, and you keep putting him back into the story.

Was there ever someone who didn't live in Florida, made a landing while
passing through, and had to pay sales tax? If there's a true story, will
someone please post it and skip all the arguing over what someone may
not have said?

Egad, if I knew I was gonna live to be a thousand I still wouldn't
have time for endless fact-free discussions like this.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-05, Stella Starr > wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> It's not about Zoom.
> You keep saying that, and you keep putting him back into the story.

Nope. Those who are saying that out-of-state people will never be charged
Florida use tax for flying their new aircraft into Florida for training or
business are arguing that the whole story is bogus because Zoom first
reported it.

> Was there ever someone who didn't live in Florida, made a landing while
> passing through, and had to pay sales tax? If there's a true story, will
> someone please post it and skip all the arguing over what someone may
> not have said?

The state of Florida says they may charge use tax for aircraft owned by
someone with no connection to Florida that flies there for business or
training. I don't trust a government to not collect tax they say they amy
collect.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:33:22 -0700, Stella Starr >
wrote:

>Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not about Zoom.
>
>You keep saying that, and you keep putting him back into the story.
>
>Was there ever someone who didn't live in Florida, made a landing while
>passing through, and had to pay sales tax? If there's a true story, will
>someone please post it and skip all the arguing over what someone may
>not have said?

AFAIKT, the Meridian case was just that. Sold in the Carolianas, flew
to VRB for a week's worth of training, left, got slapped with a tax
bill.

[BobR]

On Apr 5, 6:19*am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-04-05, Stella Starr > wrote:
>
> > Jay Maynard wrote:
> >> It's not about Zoom.
> > You keep saying that, and you keep putting him back into the story.
>
> Nope. Those who are saying that out-of-state people will never be charged
> Florida use tax for flying their new aircraft into Florida for training or
> business are arguing that the whole story is bogus because Zoom first
> reported it.
>

Now that is a lie. Nobody ever claimed that the whole story was bogus
just because zoom reported it. In fact the story was published as a
stand alone story many months before and nobody said anything about
it. What people have said is that tying it to a slam on Sun-N-Fun was
bogus because there was not one shread of proof that there was any
threat to those attending.

> > Was there ever someone who didn't live in Florida, made a landing while
> > passing through, and had to pay sales tax? If there's a true story, will
> > someone please post it and skip all the arguing over what someone may
> > not have said?
>
> The state of Florida says they may charge use tax for aircraft owned by
> someone with no connection to Florida that flies there for business or
> training. I don't trust a government to not collect tax they say they amy
> collect.
> --

That is also a lie and the portions of the law pertaining to that fact
were published here several times.

> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Just checked out your web site and now I understand everything.

Birds of a feather.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BobR > wrote in
:

> On Apr 5, 6:19*am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-04-05, Stella Starr > wrote:
>>
>> > Jay Maynard wrote:
>> >> It's not about Zoom.
>> > You keep saying that, and you keep putting him back into the story.
>>
>> Nope. Those who are saying that out-of-state people will never be
>> charged Florida use tax for flying their new aircraft into Florida
>> for training or
>
>> business are arguing that the whole story is bogus because Zoom first
>> reported it.
>>
>
> Now that is a lie. Nobody ever claimed that the whole story was bogus
> just because zoom reported it.


A few definitely spun it in that direction, but that was prolly just the
usual usenet BS.


bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-06, BobR > wrote:
> Now that is a lie. Nobody ever claimed that the whole story was bogus
> just because zoom reported it.

Then why do people kepe bringing Zoom into it?

> What people have said is that tying it to a slam on Sun-N-Fun was bogus
> because there was not one shread of proof that there was any threat to
> those attending.

The AOPA didn't tie it to SnF.

>> The state of Florida says they may charge use tax for aircraft owned by
>> someone with no connection to Florida that flies there for business or
>> training. I don't trust a government to not collect tax they say they amy
>> collect.
> That is also a lie and the portions of the law pertaining to that fact
> were published here several times.

The Florida Department of Revenue has said it. Go look at the letter that
AOPA got from them; my statement is a direct quote from that letter. The
article is at http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html , and
the letter is at http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.pdf .
My quote is taken from the answer to question 4 on page 5. AOPA is still
troubled by the use fo the term "may", and if they are, I am.

> Just checked out your web site and now I understand everything.
> Birds of a feather.

Uhm. Huh? What on my web site (and which one, for that matter) would lead
you to believe that I have anything in common with Zoom Campbell? I'm not
defending the guy. I *am* saying that his credibility, or total lack
thereof, has no bearing on this story.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[BobR]

On Apr 5, 9:07*pm, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-04-06, BobR > wrote:
>
> > Now that is a lie. *Nobody ever claimed that the whole story was bogus
> > just because zoom reported it.
>
> Then why do people kepe bringing Zoom into it?
>
> > What people have said is that tying it to a slam on Sun-N-Fun was bogus
> > because there was not one shread of proof that there was any threat to
> > those attending.
>
> The AOPA didn't tie it to SnF.
>
> >> The state of Florida says they may charge use tax for aircraft owned by
> >> someone with no connection to Florida that flies there for business or
> >> training. I don't trust a government to not collect tax they say they amy
> >> collect.
> > That is also a lie and the portions of the law pertaining to that fact
> > were published here several times.
>
> The Florida Department of Revenue has said it. Go look at the letter that
> AOPA got from them; my statement is a direct quote from that letter. The
> article is athttp://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.html, and
> the letter is athttp://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080328fl.pdf.
> My quote is taken from the answer to question 4 on page 5. AOPA is still
> troubled by the use fo the term "may", and if they are, I am.
>
> > Just checked out your web site and now I understand everything.
> > Birds of a feather.
>
> Uhm. Huh? What on my web site (and which one, for that matter) would lead
> you to believe that I have anything in common with Zoom Campbell? I'm not
> defending the guy. I *am* saying that his credibility, or total lack
> thereof, has no bearing on this story.
> --

Gee Jay, do you get my point yet? <BFG>

> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-06, BobR > wrote:
> Gee Jay, do you get my point yet? <BFG>

Apparently not.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:
>That AOPA is pursuing the matter is all the credibility I need to be
>concerned about it.

Yes, that's why I'm taking it seriously. I'll wait until the AOPA has
something to say.

In the meantime, just to be safe, if you buy a plane from a Florida
company, have them deliver it.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Edward A. Falk says...
>
>In article >,
>Jay Maynard > wrote:
>>That AOPA is pursuing the matter is all the credibility I need to be
>>concerned about it.
>
>Yes, that's why I'm taking it seriously. I'll wait until the AOPA has
>something to say.
>
>In the meantime, just to be safe, if you buy a plane from a Florida
>company, have them deliver it.

Nothing happened at SnF, there were lots of new and recently purchased planes
there and not a tax man in sight.

Word on the field was "it's just another case of zoom fanning the flames" let's
wait and see what AOPA has to say now that the fly in is over.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret