Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:39 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-27, BobR wrote:
What you don't seem to understand or I suspect you just don't give a
damn (based on your own motives statement) is that the way the story
was presented, it was a direct attempt to do harm to both Sun-N-Fun
and indirectly everyone who attends in order to display their products
and services. Motives do matter and factual presentation along with
credibility also matter.

I don't care what Zoom's motives are. The story is what matters.

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

I received this from Sun n' fun which seemingly contradicts the report
by the Cirrus owner (link above).

March 21, 2008

Sun ¡¦n Fun has recently been made aware of media reports of a ¡§Florida
Tax Ripoff¡¨ and the impact this may have on the Sun ¡¦n Fun Fly-In, which
opens Tuesday, April 8, and runs through Sunday, April 13.

The reports erroneously describe ¡§non (Florida)-resident pilots who have
been caught in the FL tax trap¡¨ and who have been ¡§targeted for ¡¥use
tax¡¦ by agents of the state¡¦s Department of Revenue . . . despite the
fact that the targeted aircraft were not owned or operated by state
residents.¡¨

This is inaccurate and misleading. Sun ¡¦n Fun contacted the Florida
Department of Revenue and received a definition of the regulation in
question. Language within the Florida Tax Code quoted in the media
reports clearly indicates this tax affects ONLY those owners who have:

Purchased their airplane in another state (outside of Florida) within
the past six months but who have the aircraft titled, registered or
licensed in Florida and have not paid Florida tax on that airplane.

This DOES NOT impact Sun ¡¦n Fun Exhibitors who bring aircraft to
Lakeland.

It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners whose airplane is more than six
months old, which comprises a vast majority of aircraft being flown to
Sun ¡¦n Fun.
It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have owned their airplane more
than six months and have it titled, registered or licensed in another
state.
It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have purchased an airplane within
the past six months and have it titled, registered or licensed in
another state (other than Florida).
And it DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have purchased their
airplanes within the past six months in Florida and have paid the
appropriate tax.
The bottom line is that the Florida Tax Code in question has the
capacity to impact a minute number ¡V if any ¡V of the aircraft flying to
Lakeland for Sun ¡¦n Fun. More importantly, the Florida Department of
Revenue has assured Sun ¡¥n Fun that there will not be any agents
assigned to the Fly-In event conducting ¡§ramp checks¡¨ and that
out-of-state aircraft flying to Florida for Sun 'n Fun are not subject
to the "sales/use" tax as long as the aircraft owner is not trying to
avoid taxes owed because he/she is a Florida resident or operates a
business in Florida and uses the aircraft for that purpose.

We look forward to seeing you at Sun ¡¦n Fun!

John Burton
President
Sun ¡¥n Fun

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes

So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

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

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

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

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.


http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

On 2008-04-01, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

Between these two, I hope this puts to rest the idea that, just because
ZoomCampbell reported it, it must be horse exhaust.
--
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)

In article , Jay Maynard says...

On 2008-04-01, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/s...aft_owner.html
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

Between these two, I hope this puts to rest the idea that, just because
ZoomCampbell reported it, it must be horse exhaust.

Actually there's 3 ,the reply from Sun n Fun's Pres John Burton. 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.It's not what he reported but HOW he reported and spun it.

Chuck S

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.

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

"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

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:11:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:28:45 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

http://www.fata.aero/news.asp?news_id=88&display=yes
So basically he wasn't charged any sales or use tax. That is not what the
A.N.N. story claimed. The Cirrus owner simply assumed that the advice he
heard over the phone was valid and canceled his plans.

This Cirrus owner and the Cirrus owner in the OP are not necessarily the
same person/plane.

Here's FDOT's position paper on the matter.

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

I don't think there is any argument whatsoever here. Florida sees the
aircraft entering Florida as "use" of Florida (air) facilities, not a
"sales" tax on the transaction. They clearly state they do ramp checks.

Does this mean Sun n Fun attendees are liable for use taxation? Sure
does. Does this mean that there is a likelihood they will be taxed? I
don't see the likelihood at all.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080328fl.html

Glad their confused too. That's where this whole mess really is.