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

Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:

AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
Download the letter
( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).

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

If AOPA was on top of this from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go
through any of this, after all, the new rules were put forth by the CAA
(California Assessor' Association) which should be a red flag in anybodies
book. AOPA needs to get this overturned, not just delayed, think of the Tax
those WarBirds are going to pay!


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:

AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
Download the letter
( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).

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

Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
the CERTIFICATION of attendence.

Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.


"Gary L" writes:

If AOPA was on top of this from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go
through any of this, after all, the new rules were put forth by the CAA
(California Assessor' Association) which should be a red flag in anybodies
book. AOPA needs to get this overturned, not just delayed, think of the Tax
those WarBirds are going to pay!


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:

AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
Download the letter
( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).

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

In article ,
Bob Fry wrote:

Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
the CERTIFICATION of attendence.

Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.



The real scam in CA is that NONE of the personal property taxes go
towards supporting the aviation infrastructure!

It all goes into the General Fund -- then the pols claim that GA
"doesn't support itself and wants to tap the General Fund."

Orval Fairbairn writes:

The real scam in CA is that NONE of the personal property taxes go
towards supporting the aviation infrastructure!

It all goes into the General Fund -- then the pols claim that GA
"doesn't support itself and wants to tap the General Fund."

Why should only aircraft personal property taxes be used for only
aviation? Car property taxes aren't used just for roads, they go into
the general fund.

Bob Fry wrote:

Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
the CERTIFICATION of attendence.

Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.

Cripes, how do California residents continue to put up with such nonsense? Thank
goodness I fled that state a few years ago. Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

Well lets look at the "scam" I'm running. I have a 1948 Emigh Trojan, one
of 59 built and one of seven left, It costs me 10gal. of gas and $10
admission to the "airshow", thats $2.78/per gal. for a total of $27.80 plus
the $10 admission for a grand total of $37.80 per air show, times 12
airshows equal $353.60. The plane is worth 15K, so if I pay the taxes at 1%
equals $150 and not show the aircraft, I will save $203.60! Sounds like a
real "scam" to me! If you would like to get in on this scam e-mail me and
make me an offer, the plane is yours.


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
Not even AOPA is claiming this exempts old planes from the use tax.
All it does is defer for a year the requirement that attendence at
shows be documented. It does NOT defer the use tax, it does NOT defer
the requirement that the aircraft be display at shows, it ONLY defers
the CERTIFICATION of attendence.

Frankly I applaud California for trying to crack down on this scam
that old-airplane owners are trying to pull; just like they tried (but
failed, I think) to crack down on the rich scammers dodging sales tax
on airplanes and yachts. A truly historic vehicle, which is used only
for display purposes (not for "normal" transportation), will always be
exempt from the use tax. But if you own a 1965 Cessna 172, which you
use for everyday pleasure and/or business flying, and simultanously
try to claim it's used only for antique display, you are scamming the
system and screw you. It amuses me how people will spend many
hundreds or even thousands of dollars dodging the tax man, at
considerable personal cost, to save $300-$500 in taxes.


"Gary L" writes:

If AOPA was on top of this from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go
through any of this, after all, the new rules were put forth by the CAA
(California Assessor' Association) which should be a red flag in
anybodies
book. AOPA needs to get this overturned, not just delayed, think of the
Tax
those WarBirds are going to pay!


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's some good news for California based aircraft owners:

AOPA GETS HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT CLARIFICATION FROM BOE
At the request of AOPA, the California Board of Equalization (BOE)
has clarified recent changes to the property tax exemption for
historical aircraft. This exemption is available to an original,
restored, or replica aircraft that is 35 years or older. The
confusion arose from changes that went into effect on January 1,
requiring aircraft owners to submit certificates of attendance
from events where the aircraft were on display. Now, in a letter
to assessors, the BOE recommends waiving the requirement for 2004.
Download the letter
( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta04012.pdf ).

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

In article , Tara
wrote:

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

did that really happen?

--
Bob Noel

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:10:30 -0500, Tara wrote:

Cripes, how do California residents continue to put up with such nonsense? Thank
goodness I fled that state a few years ago. Even here in liberal Massachusetts,
sales of airplanes are exempt from sales/use tax.

Aren't those the same folks who in desperation elected a second rate
foreign movie actor to get them out of their troubles? There ya go!
They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow it
to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific. That would greatly
increase shore line property for Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.

Stu Gotts wrote:

They really should cut the state off with a big chain saw and allow it
to float about 90 miles out into the Pacific.

No, just the southern part.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.