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

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.

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.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
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.

Patience, patience.
See "Richter 10" by Arthur C. Clarke

jue

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


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.

When the San Andreas cuts loose the problem will be solved.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:26 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


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.

When the San Andreas cuts loose the problem will be solved.


Well.... not to nitpick, but... since the San Andreas Fault is a strike slip
fault, eventually, the western half of the San Francisco peninsula will be west
of Seattle and offshore. Los Angles will be where the Western half of SF is
now. Look out G.R., here we come! ;-)

Ron Kelley

Tara writes:

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?

Uhm, what nonsense exactly?

Thank
goodness I fled that state a few years ago.

California also thanks you, and offers condolences to Massachusetts.

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

Seems hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it. However, the
above discussion is about annual personal property tax, NOT one-time
sales or use tax.

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

: Seems hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it. However, the
: above discussion is about annual personal property tax, NOT one-time
: sales or use tax.

Yup, you can believe it. No sales/use tax on purchase of aircraft, parts,
repairs, etc, etc. The only state fee left is annual "registration", which
runs about $250 based on gross weight, class, and engine type (turbine or
piston). The fee goes higher for larger aircraft than your typical 172.

--
Aaron Coolidge