Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

Roger wrote in
news
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:45:41 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
. ..


Seems the specific exemptions are fairly clear. Based on these,
there should be no reason for fear to those going to Sun-N-Fun.-
Hide quoted text -

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080320fl.html
Apparently some of their collectors are placing a different
interpetation on the rules.



- Show quoted text -

Trying to tax an airplane (or other vehicle) legally bought and
registered in another state state would be in conflict with federal
laws concerning the 'right of free travel', i.e., you can travel
freely across state borders. They can no more tax a plane in those
circumstances than they can an automobile, boat, etc. Not to say
they can't charge user fees but that is a different animal.

Hasn't the statre of Maine been doing just that?


Harry K
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

My copy of AOPA Pilot was in today's mail and, as of press time, the
Maine case is still going. Apparently, the Maine revenue department
won't budge and the case is now headed to court...

Not my area of expertise, so that's all I know.
Me neither, but the AOPA online site is saying they are working with
the state of Florida for a moratorium until after SnF and then rectify
things . They seem to think (the way I read it) is this could be a
big problem for SnF if not settled or a moratorium comes about to
protect those flying into SnF.

The problem I see on here is the guys are so hung up on Zoomn (and I
understand why) but the problem in this case according to the AOPA
is the state of Florida.
Peter


What do you expect of a state of which over 50% of the populace is of an
age where they'll keep your balll if it falls in their yard?


Bertie

Hey folks, I thought you would all like to know that the story about the
Meridian and Cirrus owners getting hit with Florida state sales or use
tax for allegedly doing nothing more than stopping there is actually A
REPEAT FROM MAY 2007! Here's the original story (NOTE THE ARTICLE DATE):

http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav....4039&Dynamic=1

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? ;-)

Oh yeah - and my suspicion that the Piper Meridian was actually a sale
of a new aircraft from a Florida based company (and therefore reasonably
subject to Florida sales tax) is hinted at by these quotes from that
article:

"... Piper is reportedly NOT pleased about the Meridian tax bill noted
above ... We have a feeling that Piper CEO Jim Bass may have a few
things to say, as a result of these recent events, since anyone taking
delivery at a Florida Piper plant may find themselves with a tax bill,
even if they leave the state right away and never darken the state's
borders again."

So basically the article all but admits the buyer of that ~$1.9M Piper
Meridian[1] took delivery in Florida. No wonder someone well heeled
enough to afford that kind of plane didn't try very hard to contest the
6% sales tax (~$114,000).

[1] http://www.newpiper.com/aircraft/mer...ifications.asp

Roger wrote:
Me neither, but the AOPA online site is saying they are working with
the state of Florida for a moratorium until after SnF and then rectify
things . They seem to think (the way I read it) is this could be a
big problem for SnF if not settled or a moratorium comes about to
protect those flying into SnF.

See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N. is
basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause maximum
damage to it and Florida. It appears to this causal observer that AOPA has
fallen for a sucker punch. Note carefully that their letter and complaint
is totally lacking in detail or specifics. I wonder why?

Somebody who is a member of AOPA (I am not) might want to alert them to
this bit of rehashed "journalism".

The problem I see on here is the guys are so hung up on Zoomn (and I
understand why) but the problem in this case according to the AOPA
is the state of Florida.

I didn't know who "zoom" was when I first started reading
rec.aviation.homebuilt (among the groups this is cross-posted to) and
really have no beef with the fellow. But the criticisms of him by others
did make me suspicious of both his critics and him. And it does look like
the "Zoom hangup" in this case is warranted.

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:
Roger wrote:

See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N. is
basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause maximum
damage to it and Florida.

Did it really happen or not? Apparently it did. Has the law changed
to prevent a recurrance? Apparently it has not. Is a major aviation
event scheduled to appear in the not-too-distant-future? It certainly
is. Does this pose a danger to people who would be likely to fly in
to it? I think it does. I think warning the aviation community
of the problem is perfectly reasonable. A simple visit to Florida
could cost you many thousands of dollars. Anybody tempted to visit
that state deserves to know this.

Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.
I think the AOPA should give some serious thought to moving SnF to a
state that's not so hostile to visiting aviation.

More importantly, I think we should fight this trend fought tooth-and-nail
while we still can. First Maine, and now Florida. Pretty soon, all
the states will get it into their heads that they can enhance revenue
by charging use tax on every expensive vehicle that crosses the border.
Soon, all of us will be limited to flying our airplanes around strictly
within the confines of our home states.


So; is it true or not? The AOPA article looks pretty damning. I hope
it's not true. What evidence do you have that it's not?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:
Hey folks, I thought you would all like to know that the story about the
Meridian and Cirrus owners getting hit with Florida state sales or use
tax for allegedly doing nothing more than stopping there is actually A
REPEAT FROM MAY 2007!

So what?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

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.

Stan

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:
Roger wrote:

See my post where I gave the URL to the May 2007 A.N.N. story. A.N.N.
is basically rehashing a year-old story just ahead of SnF to cause
maximum damage to it and Florida.

Did it really happen or not? Apparently it did.

Correct - a sale in Florida got hit with a Florida sales tax. That is
perfectly normal and doesn't deserve any press.

Has the law changed
to prevent a recurrance? Apparently it has not.

And it doesn't appear to need any changing. You can find it on the web.
Since you appear to be claiming that the law needs changing, why don't
you quote it and tell us what aspect needs changing?

A simple visit to Florida
could cost you many thousands of dollars. Anybody tempted to visit
that state deserves to know this.

Baloney. A simple visit to Florida does not trigger use tax. Florida
would not have prevailed if that were their only basis for demanding the
tax.

Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.

What precisely do you think the story is here? Are you claiming the
seller was not a Florida company? If so, you have information I don't
have. Please share with me who the seller was and what state they were
in. I'm claiming there is a preponderance of evidence indicating Piper, a
Florida company, delivered to a North Carolina person or legal entity a
plane that was subject to Florida sales tax. You present precisely zero
evidence - just outrage.

So; is it true or not? The AOPA article looks pretty damning.

If it is so damning, then feel free to quote the cases listed in the AOPA
article of inappropriate sales tax. You only need name one. I'll be here
all year.

What evidence do you have that it's not?

Res ipsa loquitur:

Florida has the sales tax money and the buyer gave up, even though by my
estimate the difference between NC and FL taxes for the plane was worth a
bit more than $30,000 to the purchaser.

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:
Hey folks, I thought you would all like to know that the story about the
Meridian and Cirrus owners getting hit with Florida state sales or use
tax for allegedly doing nothing more than stopping there is actually A
REPEAT FROM MAY 2007!

So what?

You elided the essential bits of my post and left that? Why?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:39:06 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

Should this story damage Florida? If it's true, I would say yes.
I think the AOPA should give some serious thought to moving SnF to a
state that's not so hostile to visiting aviation.

AOPA? What does AOPA have to do with SnF?

And if you meant to say "EAA," well, EAA has nothing to do with it, either.

Ron Wanttaja

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?

Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
--
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)