Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

"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.co...Aug%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?

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

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/art...f_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.

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/art...f_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" 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.

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/...EChapter%20212

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

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...6&SessionId=57

and he

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/inde...8&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.

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/...Display_Statut...

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

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...l.aspx?BillId=...

and he

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/inde...illInfo&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

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. ;-)

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'...

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