Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.


http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

On 2008-04-01, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

Between these two, I hope this puts to rest the idea that, just because
ZoomCampbell reported it, it must be horse exhaust.
--
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)

In article , Jay Maynard says...

On 2008-04-01, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

Between these two, I hope this puts to rest the idea that, just because
ZoomCampbell reported it, it must be horse exhaust.

Actually there's 3 ,the reply from Sun n Fun's Pres John Burton. What your not
getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create the
perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a lot
different.It's not what he reported but HOW he reported and spun it.

Chuck S

"I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction."

This is not at all correct. "Use tax" has a specific legal definition, which
doesn't refer to the "use" of a specific something.

In the context being discussed, the use tax is the amount of sales tax that
would have been collected on the transaction if it had occurred in Florida,
minus the amount of the sales tax (if any) collected by another state.

This same type of tax is frequently collected when one changes an automobile
registration from one state to another.

The purpose of these types of taxes is to prevent someone from purchasing a
big-ticket item in a low tax state, then registering/using it in a high tax
state.

Assume you live in State 'A', which has a sales tax rate of 10%. If you
bought an airplane for $100,000 in State 'A' and kept it there, you would
pay $10,000 in sales tax to State 'A'.

But if you went to State 'B', which has a sales tax rate of 5% to buy the
$100,000 airplane, you would pay $5,000 in sales tax to State 'B'.

However, if you bought the airplane in State 'B' and begin keeping/using it
in State 'A', State 'A' would then charge you a "use tax" of $5,000, or the
difference between the $5,000 sales tax you paid to State 'B' and the amount
the tax would have been had you purchased the airplane in State 'A'. Again,
this is to prevent residents of State 'A' from buying big-ticket items in
other states in order to avoid the (high) sales taxes in State 'A'.

This whole thing is nothing more than someone incorrectly interpreting some
very common tax regulations. From some of the posts I have read here and
elsewhere, this interpretation may be a deliberate attempt to create panic.

But Florida will no more try to impose a use tax if you fly your airplane
there for a two week vacation than they would if you drove your car there
for a two week vacation.



"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.

On 2008-04-01, news.chi.sbcglobal.net wrote:
But Florida will no more try to impose a use tax if you fly your airplane
there for a two week vacation than they would if you drove your car there
for a two week vacation.

Unfortunately, they claim they can. From the FDoR page on sales and use tax,
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html :
-----
What Is Use Tax?

Use tax is a component of Florida's sales and use tax law. It is due on
purchases made out of state and brought into Florida within 6 months of the
purchase date.

The "use" component of sales and use tax provides uniform taxation of items
such as aircraft, which may be purchased outside Florida, but used,
hangared, or stored in the state.

Aircraft purchased and used outside Florida for more than 6 months are
generally exempt when brought into Florida, if both of the following
conditions are met:

The owner has owned the aircraft for more than 6 months.
The owner has used the aircraft in another state or states, U.S. territory,
or District of Columbia 6 months or longer prior to bringing the aircraft to
Florida.
-----
"Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.
--
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, 01 Apr 2008 15:11:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

Glad their confused too. That's where this whole mess really is.

WJRFlyBoy wrote in
:

On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

What your not
getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to
create the perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the
reality is a lot different

I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.

I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
through your head.


Look, would you guys, all of you, please go do a short course on
argumnt?


Bertie

On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

What your not
getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create the
perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a lot
different

I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.

I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
through your head.

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2008 14:53:01 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

What your not
getting is that there is reality and perception, zooms trying to create
the
perception that if you go to SnF you'll get taxed when the reality is a
lot
different

I have shown several times and in several posts that Florida has the
legal, statutory right to tax your plane under the conditions outlined
in this thread. That they have taken exactly that action.

I simply do not understand why it is that you can't get this concept
through your head.

There is a very limited set of circumstances in which Florida will tax an
aircraft. The ANN articles implied that the circumstances are far broader
than they are in reality. Typical of the annual "Torpedo SnF " hatchet job
articles, the story in ANN didn't have a byline, didn't offer enough facts
to paint the entire picture, and was timed to cause harm to SnF.

Other than that, it was a fine article.

KB