It's over was: RI tax madness

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Your first line was: "Are those people telling the truth?"
which is questioning their veracity without any basis to do
so.
What basis do I need to ask a question?

None. But then you can't claim you had any basis for asking
it.

Then you wrote: "If not, they may well find that the taxman
eventually gets around to coming back. I sure hope he
does." Since the tax man has no way to tell whether it's
true *except* by coming back, and your "hope he does" come
back wasn't qualified, you seemed to be wishing the tax man
on them.

My "hope he does" certainly was qualified. All you have to do is look at
the paragraph in which it's found. That paragraph clearly begins with "If
not", which you even quoted.

I quoted it to be fair to you. It qualifies the possibility
that the tax man will come around, not your hope that he
does. I said it "seemed" to be wishing the tax man on them.
If you say you don't wish the tax man to show up and make
the life of some fellow pilots more expensive and difficult,
I'll take you at your word, but that's not how I interpreted
it. They are friends of mine and shouldn't be suspected of
tax evasion by you or the CT Dept. of Revenue.

I agree with you that pilots, like everyone else, should pay
taxes they owe, but I don't think they should pay any taxes
they don't owe and I don't think they should be suspected of
it. In fact, in the situations we are discussing, the
pilots were not even engaged in a legitimate "tax avoidance"
strategy. They simply happened to keep their aircraft out
of state for reasons completely unrelated to taxes, and I
advised them of the fact that under CT law, they owed no
sales/use tax.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.