A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

finally resolved Kern County tax problem



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old September 2nd 05, 04:49 AM
ken ward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default finally resolved Kern County tax problem

As some of you may recall, although my glider has been at Minden for
years (and I pay taxes there), a few months ago I got a tax bill from
Kern County (KC). The supposed aircraft location was the Cal City
airport. After a few phone calls I determined that the bill was based
on a casual conversation I had with the Douglas County (DC) Assessor
(Ann) last fall, indicating that I *might* use Cal City in the future.

The upshot was that she finked on me to KC, who dutifully issued me a
bill ($330/year in KC vs $78/year in DC). This was in spite of the fact
that the glider is not at Cal City, has never been at Cal City, much
less KC. No evidence existed to claim that my glider has ever been seen
at Cal City. DC is conservative enough to only issue bills based upon
actual sightings.

I've lost track of how many phone calls I've made to both Assessors,
trying to straighten this out. While DC was apologetic, KC was
downright snippy when I suggested that I didn't actually owe them any
money. Their argument was that since they'd *heard* that I was going to
base my glider at Cal City, then it was MY problem to convince them to
their satisfaction that I was paying taxes somewhere else.

That is, if I couldn't prove that I was paying taxes *somewhere*, then I
had to pay KC. They were unable to cite a statute in support of their
position, and were clearly irked when I asked for the relevant code.

Only a personal phone call from the DC Assessor to the KC Assessor
caused KC to drop their demand. The only reason I pursued it is because
I reasoned it would be less work to keep KC from putting a bogus lein on
my glider, than it would be to get a bogus lein (plus penalties) removed.

Grrrrrr.

Ken
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) Snowbird Home Built 78 December 3rd 03 09:10 PM
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) Snowbird Owning 77 December 3rd 03 09:10 PM
2003 Kern County Airshow (Ridgecrest, Ca) SNOWBIRD PICS now up Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography Aviation Marketplace 0 October 16th 03 11:05 PM
2003 Kern County (Ridgecrest, Ca) Airshow Gallery (SNOWBIRD PICS) Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography Military Aviation 0 October 16th 03 11:02 PM
2003 Kern County (Ridgecrest, Calif) Airshow Gallery - SNOWBIRD PICS NOW UP!!! Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography Aerobatics 0 October 16th 03 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.