Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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?

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

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)

"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/art...f_state_taxes/

-Mike