Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

Jay Maynard wrote:

..
-----
"Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.

It's really not. Virtually every state that has a Sales tax has a Use
tax. It is so that if you live or have an ongoing connection with a
state you can't get around paying the sales tax buy purchasing an item
in another state.

Here are some example of when a Use tax would be due.

You order from a mail order company that has no establishment in your
home state. Technically you are supposed to pay Use tax.

You have a business and are exempt from Sales tax for items that are
purchased for resale. Let's say you purchase 12 widgets. You put 11 of
them up for sale and keep one for either personal or business use. You
owe Use tax on widget number 12.

Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
written in regards to aircraft is **** poor. But the spirit behind the
law is not to charge for Use of their airspace. It is so FL residents
don't buy an aircraft in FL. Fly to some state that doesn't have a sales
tax or otherwise have a good way to get around sales taxes on aircraft
and then fly it back. What makes the issue more tricky than say a car is
that unlike a car you don't have to get a state specific license for an
aircraft which shows that the car is registered and taxed somewhere else.

There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
getting taxed.

On 2008-04-02, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
"Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.
It's really not. Virtually every state that has a Sales tax has a Use
tax. It is so that if you live or have an ongoing connection with a
state you can't get around paying the sales tax buy purchasing an item
in another state.

Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)

Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.

It's the letter of the law that counts.

But the spirit behind the law is not to charge for Use of their airspace.

Actually, the Minnesota use tax *does* intend to charge for use of the
airports and airspace: it's due if an aircraft uses either for more than 60
days out of the first year. Fortunately, they do only charge it for
Minnesota owners. (The provision is for cases where a Minnesota owner bases
the aircraft in another state; I could do that, for example, living as close
to Iowa as I do.)

There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
getting taxed.

There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.
--
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)

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-04-02, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
"Brought into Florida" is awfully broad.
It's really not. Virtually every state that has a Sales tax has a Use
tax. It is so that if you live or have an ongoing connection with a
state you can't get around paying the sales tax buy purchasing an item
in another state.

Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)

Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.

It's the letter of the law that counts.


But not only Florida's law counts. There are Federal Constitutional
issues here that negate a state from taxing a citizen from another state
in the only way this is going to effect you or I.



But the spirit behind the law is not to charge for Use of their airspace.

Actually, the Minnesota use tax *does* intend to charge for use of the
airports and airspace: it's due if an aircraft uses either for more than 60
days out of the first year. Fortunately, they do only charge it for
Minnesota owners. (The provision is for cases where a Minnesota owner bases
the aircraft in another state; I could do that, for example, living as close
to Iowa as I do.)

There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
getting taxed.

There's gotta be fire under the smoke; EAA wouldn't be publishing this one
right before Sun n Fun if there weren't some basis for it.

CYA all around. Never bad idea.

"Tim Ward" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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


You want room 3A, just along the hall. It's being hit on the head
lessons in here.


I should have expected that.


( Good set up for your next Python gag!)


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
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


You want room 3A, just along the hall. It's being hit on the head lessons in
here.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:01:59 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

"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

No disagreement with any of this, Kyle.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:20:48 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)

Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.

It's the letter of the law that counts.


But not only Florida's law counts. There are Federal Constitutional
issues here that negate a state from taxing a citizen from another state
in the only way this is going to effect you or I.

So you get the privilege of paying the use tax *and* expending the $$$
suing the State Of Florida for violating constitutional law?

This is good?

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:17:16 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

There is no true example of say a pilot from Arkansas purchasing a plane
in FL or Arkansas and then that pilot taking a vacation to FL and
getting taxed.

According to FDOR, they have and will continue to do just that.

FYI, you don't have to bring the aircraft to FL either.

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

Under most conditions, use tax is due on aircraft brought into Florida
within 6 months from the date of purchase. *However, use tax may be
immediately due if any of the following conditions are met:*

* The aircraft is owned by a Florida resident.
* The aircraft is owned by a corporation and used by a corporate
officer or director who is a Florida resident.
* The aircraft is owned by a corporate entity that has an individual
vested with authority to participate in the management, direction, or
control of the entity's affairs who is a resident of or makes his or her
permanent residence in this state.
* The aircraft is owned by a person, corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, joint adventure, association, syndicate, business
trust, trust, estate, or other form of artificial entity that is not
engaged in Florida in any employment, trade, business, or profession in
which the aircraft will be used.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:20:48 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Oh, I understand full well the intent of the tax. Minnesota has one, and
I'll be paying it on the Zodiac. (6.5% of the full purchase price, ouch!)

Now I will admit that the way the Florida law and tax regulation is
written in regards to aircraft is **** poor.
It's the letter of the law that counts.

But not only Florida's law counts. There are Federal Constitutional
issues here that negate a state from taxing a citizen from another state
in the only way this is going to effect you or I.

So you get the privilege of paying the use tax *and* expending the $$$
suing the State Of Florida for violating constitutional law?

This is good?

No the point is that Florida's lawyers are well aware of the
Constitutional issues and aren't violating and aren't charging you as a
non-Floridian for flying to SNF.

Jay Maynard wrote:
Actually, the Minnesota use tax *does* intend to charge for use of the
airports and airspace: it's due if an aircraft uses either for more
than 60 days out of the first year.

Speaking only of use of the airspace over a state (e.g. overflight but
no landing), there is a federal law I believe prohibits a state from
charging any taxes or fees for such a transit:

" (b) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section and section 40117 of this title, a State, a political
subdivision of a State, and any person that has purchased or leased an
airport under section 47134 of this title may not levy or collect a tax,
fee, head charge, or other charge on--
(1) an individual traveling in air commerce;
(2) the transportation of an individual traveling in air commerce;
(3) the sale of air transportation; or
(4) the gross receipts from that air commerce or transportation.

(c) Aircraft Taking Off or Landing in State.--A State or political
subdivision of a State may levy or collect a tax on or related to a
flight of a commercial aircraft or an activity or service on the
aircraft only if the aircraft takes off or lands in the State or
political subdivision as part of the flight."

Additional context may be found here (in case I have misinterpreted
the law):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:+49USC4011 6