Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

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

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

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

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?

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

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/SpecialCont...616eab2&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...d.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 wrote:
http://www.aero-news.net/SpecialCont...616eab2&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.

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/SpecialCont...616eab2&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...d.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/article.../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.

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?

"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