Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any
of you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)

Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to
do so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns,
if the whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?

I am not a "Zoom-basher". This is the first time I've ever looked into an
issue related to Jim Campbell. I've been posting to Usenet for many years
and have never previously discussed anything about this fellow and
otherwise could care less. I do have issues with deceptive "journalism"
though.

Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.

But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:49:07 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any
of you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)

Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to
do so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns,
if the whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?

I am not a "Zoom-basher". This is the first time I've ever looked into an
issue related to Jim Campbell. I've been posting to Usenet for many years
and have never previously discussed anything about this fellow and
otherwise could care less. I do have issues with deceptive "journalism"
though.

Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.

But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

Florida DOR can derail the entire thing by publishing on letterhead
something that says "Merely entering the state of Florida for vacation
or training in an aircraft that has changed hands within the last six
months will not neccessarily incur the state use tax" and listing the
specific conditions (based in FL, registered to a FL address, etc)
which would lead to the tax assessment, but they haven't done that
either.

On Mar 25, 1:53*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:49:07 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:





Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Okay - now - why is the story being rehashed at just this time? Any
of you students of life care to raise a hand and give an answer? ;-)

Would you Zoom-bashers (and I'm not contesting whether you're right to
do so or not!) PLEASE explain why AOPA is raising the same concerns,
if the whole thing is just a Zoom vendetta?

I am not a "Zoom-basher". This is the first time I've ever looked into an
issue related to Jim Campbell. I've been posting to Usenet for many years
and have never previously discussed anything about this fellow and
otherwise could care less. I do have issues with deceptive "journalism"
though.

Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.

But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

Florida DOR can derail the entire thing by publishing on letterhead
something that says "Merely entering the state of Florida for vacation
or training in an aircraft that has changed hands within the last six
months will not neccessarily incur the state use tax" and listing the
specific conditions (based in FL, registered to a FL address, etc)
which would lead to the tax assessment, but they haven't done that
either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys are missing the boat a little bit. The Fla tax code reads."
If a plane is flown into the state for the intent of doing business
the owner/s are liable for paying the tax. " Even if it is for a day
or a week. Now imagine all the new aircraft that are being flown in to
demo, display and participate in the Sun and Fun fly in that are out
of state registered. By the current tax code the Fla dept of revenue
has every right to ramp check and impose said tax on those aircraft.
You can spin it any way you want and Zoom might be" less then
honerable" but the current law is what it is.....
YMMV.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT), stol
wrote:


You guys are missing the boat a little bit. The Fla tax code reads."
If a plane is flown into the state for the intent of doing business
the owner/s are liable for paying the tax. " Even if it is for a day
or a week.

I wonder if they consider going to training "doing business" and
that's why the non-Florida transaction Meridian was slapped. Guess
SimCom in Arizona will get busy if FL doesn't fix this, or does AZ
have something equally silly?

On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an issue when
AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is not in the habit
of crying wolf.
--
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 Mar 25, 7:04*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:

Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue on,
say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an issue when
AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is not in the habit
of crying wolf.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

I want to know why there is only one such incedent like this reported?
I have seen many new planes passing through Florida for business in
the last year. Just this past January they had the Light Sport
Exibition in Sebring. I didn't hear of one problem with the tax
collectors and they had about 150 vendors and planes here for
commercial use.

Like I stated in an earlier post zzzoom has an axe to grind and that
is the entire reason for this latest rant. You will find one thing
campbell is really good at is lying to get back at someone. Think
about Chuck S. and the Conn situation or the Capella that Shane Smith
crashed. With me he called the CEO of the airline that I worked for
and told him that I got into an argument with the international judges
at the Breitling cup event in Pompano Fl. Told him that I argued that
I was a manager for his airline and I could watch from the judges
area. What zzzoom didn't know was that I was there with the VP of
operations and he knew that nothing of the sort happened.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

On 2008-03-26, wrote:
Like I stated in an earlier post zzzoom has an axe to grind and that
is the entire reason for this latest rant.

From him, could well be. This does not in any way explain why AOPA would be
crying wolf. Take Zoom out of the equation. As long as AOPA says there's a
problem, it's not about Zoom.
--
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 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue
on, say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an
issue when AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is
not in the habit of crying wolf.

Jay, it now looks like the EAA also now thinks it is an issue:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-03-25_florida.asp

It contains the specific sections of the FL tax code that it has
concerns about. I did a bit of searching and found the "Official
Internet Site of the Florida Legislature" and the code in question is
here (212.05 and 212.06):

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...EChapter%20212

The EAA letter mentions two pending bills in the FL house and senate
that address the issue, which can be found he

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...6&SessionId=57

and he

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/inde...8&billnum=2856

One caveat: there are a lot of states in the U.S. with sales and use
taxes and it would not surprise me if others also contain ambiguous laws
that can cause pocketbook grief to the unwary if the tax authorities got
aggressive.

On Mar 26, 6:55*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-03-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Zoom Campbell may well be a kook. Phil Boyer is not.
But Phil Boyer can be mistaken or otherwise taken in by deliberately
deceptive reporting. Have you seen any mention of this alleged issue
on, say, AvWeb or EAA's web sites?

No. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. I'll believe it's not an
issue when AOPA says it's not an issue. As I've said before, AOPA is
not in the habit of crying wolf.

Jay, it now looks like the EAA also now thinks it is an issue:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-03-25_florida.asp

It contains the specific sections of the FL tax code that it has
concerns about. I did a bit of searching and found the "Official
Internet Site of the Florida Legislature" and the code in question is
here (212.05 and 212.06):

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...Display_Statut...

The EAA letter mentions two pending bills in the FL house and senate
that address the issue, which can be found he

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...l.aspx?BillId=...

and he

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/inde...illInfo&Mode=B....

One caveat: there are a lot of states in the U.S. with sales and use
taxes and it would not surprise me if others also contain ambiguous laws
that can cause pocketbook grief to the unwary if the tax authorities got
aggressive.

Again if this issue is 7 months old why didn't it come up during the
Light Sport Expo this January. The only thing I can see is zzzoom
doesn't have a bone to pick with them. Seems to me that if this was as
big a deal it has been made out to be the Florida Dept of Revenue
would have had a field day there.

If you read the AOPA letter to the FDOR it relates that members are "
concerned " about this. I still think that this goes back to one
person yelling fire in the theater and causing a stampede.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my Secret World Hq

wrote:
Again if this issue is 7 months old why didn't it come up during the
Light Sport Expo this January. The only thing I can see is zzzoom
doesn't have a bone to pick with them. Seems to me that if this was as
big a deal it has been made out to be the Florida Dept of Revenue
would have had a field day there.

If you read the AOPA letter to the FDOR it relates that members are "
concerned " about this. I still think that this goes back to one
person yelling fire in the theater and causing a stampede.

I am general agreement with all that.

Two takes:

On one side are those who claim the issue is real and aircraft owners
visiting Florida must be getting hit right and left by zealous tax
collectors (else why would the AOPA and EAA be taking up the issue) so the
"zoom bashers" are obviously blinded by their dislike of the fellow.

On the other side are those who claim the issue concerns long established
law and a few unsubstantiated incidents whose facts are incomplete spread
by a person with a vendetta and reinforced by a large number of people
easily driven to hysteria.

Obviously both sides can be made to look irrational. ;-)