It's over was: RI tax madness

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

So, because there are a lot of expenses involved in aviation, it's okay to
break the law?

No. I thought I made it clear that they acted within the
law. In fact the CT law is stricter than the RI law being
discussed, and they had to fit within those tighter
restrictions. I simply think it goes too far to assume a
violation and wish a visit by a tax man on a fellow pilot.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
So, because there are a lot of expenses involved in aviation, it's okay
to
break the law?

No. I thought I made it clear that they acted within the
law.

My comment was specifically addressed in regards to a person who is lying
when they answer the tax man. If what you say is true, then those comments
don't apply to the people you're talking about. You are taking offense on
their behalf for no reason.

[...] I simply think it goes too far to assume a
violation and wish a visit by a tax man on a fellow pilot.

I simply think it goes too far to assume a comment was directed at a person
that the comment specifically excluded.

But even if I wished a visit by a tax man on the people you're talking
about, so what? According to you, they have nothing to hide, and have
broken no laws. They should breeze right through the audit.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

[...] I simply think it goes too far to assume a
violation and wish a visit by a tax man on a fellow pilot.

I simply think it goes too far to assume a comment was directed at a person
that the comment specifically excluded.

I gave a list of reasons why they didn't have to pay taxes
on their aircraft. You took that list, and without any
basis, questioned the pilots' veracity, then wished the tax
man on them.

The list I gave was for comparison with the RI law.
Although this thread started as an attack on the R.I law,
when you realize that their law excludes non-residents, and
then compare to the CT law, you see that RI is actually
easier on its residents, as they can still fly into their
home state without triggering the use tax.

But even if I wished a visit by a tax man on the people you're talking
about, so what? According to you, they have nothing to hide, and have
broken no laws. They should breeze right through the audit.

Sounds like you've never dealt with the tax man before.

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

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
[...] You took that list, and without any
basis, questioned the pilots' veracity, then wished the tax
man on them.

That's simply not true. You need to go back and actually *read* what I
wrote.

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

You [...] took that list, and without any
basis, questioned the pilots' veracity, then wished the tax
man on them.

That's simply not true. You need to go back and actually *read* what I
wrote.

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

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

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
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? You're just being silly.

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. Certainly the tax man's ability to find the
truth one way or the other has NO relevance to my own statements.

Pete

No. I thought I made it clear that they acted within the
law. In fact the CT law is stricter than the RI law being
discussed, and they had to fit within those tighter
restrictions

Tax avoidance (like draft avoidance) is not illegal. Indeed, I believe
the IRS still includes a statement in the front of its 1040
instruction booklet (I haven't used one in years) reminding people
that they don't have to pay any more taxes than--well, than they have
to pay!

I don't know about other states, but I've found the tax authorities in
New Hampshire to be especially helpful and forthcoming. (Perhaps this
is because the New Hampshire tax system is based on the principal that
taxes and fees are something that the folks from Massachusetts should
pay.) It's good that this is so, because the New Hampshire tax forms
are mysteriously opaque. Indeed, the Interest and Dividends tax form
once got into The New Yorker for its instruction, on Page One: "Do Not
Begin With This Page".


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com