RI tax madness

I'd like to find out more about this. Do you have a reference to an
official article?


"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Say, this really looks to be for real. AOPA just advised me not to stay
overnight in RI or fly between airports until it blows over. I'm planning
on emailing the following to some of the FBO's to give them some
ammunition
in getting it overturned. Other northeast pilots might want to do
something
similar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------

Thank you for taking time to discuss the emergency tax regulation. I will
be informing our 25 club members that flights to RI in club aircraft are
prohibited until this matter is resolved. Although I understand that the
provision only applies to overnight stopovers or flights between RI
airports, I would not want a member faced with the choice between assuming
an economic liability equal to 7% of the aircraft's cost and taking off in
poor weather or with a mechanical problem. I also would not want their
choice of an emergency diversion airport effected by knowledge of this
provision.

I am confident that this tax provision will eventually be overturned by
the
courts, even if common sense does not prevail. In the meantime, we would
be
required to carry any tax judgement as a liability on our books which
would
impair our ability to borrow money or sell the aircraft. We could also be
exposed to legal costs defending against any action by the state to
collect.

I look forward to a successful resolution of this matter so that we, and
other GA pilots, will again feel free to fly to RI and spend our dollars
in
your state.

--
Roger Long

See the current Avweb.com. AOPA and the FBO I spoke to in RI both confirmed
that it is essentially accurate. The AOPA representative says they are hard
on it and something should appear on their site today or tomorrow.

--
Roger Long
Peter Gottlieb wrote in message
...
I'd like to find out more about this. Do you have a reference to an
official article?


"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
Say, this really looks to be for real. AOPA just advised me not to stay
overnight in RI or fly between airports until it blows over. I'm
planning
on emailing the following to some of the FBO's to give them some
ammunition
in getting it overturned. Other northeast pilots might want to do
something
similar.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------

Thank you for taking time to discuss the emergency tax regulation. I
will
be informing our 25 club members that flights to RI in club aircraft are
prohibited until this matter is resolved. Although I understand that
the
provision only applies to overnight stopovers or flights between RI
airports, I would not want a member faced with the choice between
assuming
an economic liability equal to 7% of the aircraft's cost and taking off
in
poor weather or with a mechanical problem. I also would not want their
choice of an emergency diversion airport effected by knowledge of this
provision.

I am confident that this tax provision will eventually be overturned by
the
courts, even if common sense does not prevail. In the meantime, we
would
be
required to carry any tax judgement as a liability on our books which
would
impair our ability to borrow money or sell the aircraft. We could also
be
exposed to legal costs defending against any action by the state to
collect.

I look forward to a successful resolution of this matter so that we, and
other GA pilots, will again feel free to fly to RI and spend our dollars
in
your state.

--
Roger Long

I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island based pilot,
I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time today trying to find
the legislation that enacts this, and so far have not found it. If you have a
bill or resolution number, I could use that when I call my rep to bitch about
it. We did have a bill in the legislature to repeal sales and use taxes on
aircraft related matters here in the state to help encourage business. This
news is diametrically opposed to what had been proposed in the bill earlier this
year.

Roger Long wrote:

See the current Avweb.com. AOPA and the FBO I spoke to in RI both confirmed
that it is essentially accurate. The AOPA representative says they are hard
on it and something should appear on their site today or tomorrow.

--
Roger Long
Peter Gottlieb wrote in message
...
I'd like to find out more about this. Do you have a reference to an
official article?


"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
Say, this really looks to be for real. AOPA just advised me not to stay
overnight in RI or fly between airports until it blows over. I'm
planning
on emailing the following to some of the FBO's to give them some
ammunition
in getting it overturned. Other northeast pilots might want to do
something
similar.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------

Thank you for taking time to discuss the emergency tax regulation. I
will
be informing our 25 club members that flights to RI in club aircraft are
prohibited until this matter is resolved. Although I understand that
the
provision only applies to overnight stopovers or flights between RI
airports, I would not want a member faced with the choice between
assuming
an economic liability equal to 7% of the aircraft's cost and taking off
in
poor weather or with a mechanical problem. I also would not want their
choice of an emergency diversion airport effected by knowledge of this
provision.

I am confident that this tax provision will eventually be overturned by
the
courts, even if common sense does not prevail. In the meantime, we
would
be
required to carry any tax judgement as a liability on our books which
would
impair our ability to borrow money or sell the aircraft. We could also
be
exposed to legal costs defending against any action by the state to
collect.

I look forward to a successful resolution of this matter so that we, and
other GA pilots, will again feel free to fly to RI and spend our dollars
in
your state.

--
Roger Long





--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:08:31 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island based pilot,
I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time today trying to find
the legislation that enacts this, and so far have not found it. If you have a
bill or resolution number, I could use that when I call my rep to bitch about
it. We did have a bill in the legislature to repeal sales and use taxes on
aircraft related matters here in the state to help encourage business. This
news is diametrically opposed to what had been proposed in the bill earlier this
year.

http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/r...DOTAX_2510.pdf


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Only having been a pilot for 2-years I can honestly say that this is the
most ridiculous "Russian Roulette" regulation I have seen yet.



"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Say, this really looks to be for real. AOPA just advised me not to stay
overnight in RI or fly between airports until it blows over. I'm planning
on emailing the following to some of the FBO's to give them some
ammunition
in getting it overturned. Other northeast pilots might want to do
something
similar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------

Thank you for taking time to discuss the emergency tax regulation. I will
be informing our 25 club members that flights to RI in club aircraft are
prohibited until this matter is resolved. Although I understand that the
provision only applies to overnight stopovers or flights between RI
airports, I would not want a member faced with the choice between assuming
an economic liability equal to 7% of the aircraft's cost and taking off in
poor weather or with a mechanical problem. I also would not want their
choice of an emergency diversion airport effected by knowledge of this
provision.

I am confident that this tax provision will eventually be overturned by
the
courts, even if common sense does not prevail. In the meantime, we would
be
required to carry any tax judgement as a liability on our books which
would
impair our ability to borrow money or sell the aircraft. We could also be
exposed to legal costs defending against any action by the state to
collect.

I look forward to a successful resolution of this matter so that we, and
other GA pilots, will again feel free to fly to RI and spend our dollars
in
your state.

--
Roger Long

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in message
. ca...

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:08:31 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island
based pilot, I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time
today trying to find the legislation that enacts this, and so far have
not
found it. If you have a bill or resolution number, I could use that
when
I call my rep to bitch about it. We did have a bill in the legislature
to
repeal sales and use taxes on aircraft related matters here in the
state
to help encourage business. This news is diametrically opposed to
what had been proposed in the bill earlier this year.

http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/r...DOTAX_2510.pdf

Interesting. This document raises a number of questions in my mind, such
as:

This document specifies the effective date as April 02, 2003. Has this
been in force since then? If so, why are we just aware of it now?, and if
not, can the state impose a new tax retroactively? (It would seem
to be unconstitutional, US Constitution, article 9 ..."No bill of
attainder
or ex post facto law shall be passed.")

I'm also thinking that charging the tax on aircraft relocated to RI,
from some other state, is effectively a 'tax or duty laid on articles
exported from another state', which would also seem to be
denied by the US Constitution (article 9, also).

What is the 'emergency' justification? Is this justification
within the purview of Tax Administrator?

What legal/public process is required in order to cause such a
regulation
to come into effect? Did this occur? Can a new tax be imposed without
legislative or public input? What kind of notice period is required for
such a new tax? Or is that the 'emergency' - an end-run around the
nuisance of a public process?


Oops. References here to 'article 9' should have been article 1, section 9
....

I received the following response to an inquiry I made yesterday:

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul McVay [mailto
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:37 AM

To: me

Subject: Use tax on non-commercial aircraft



Mr. Foley:

Non-residents are not subject to the 7% R.I. Use Tax. This regulation

applies to persons or companies that may have some type of residency or

business location in Rhode Island.

The "emergency" is an end run. It comes up to the legislature in October. I
wrote this letter to the providence journal:

This is why businesses don't want to be in Rhode Island

Rhode Island's Division of Taxation recently put into effect an "emergency
regulation" that states that if a "non-commercial" (business or private)
aircraft flies between two points in the state, stays overnight, or lands here
more than three times in one month, the aircraft is subject to a use tax equal
to 7% of the aircraft's value. The motivation is apparently to reap a tax
windfall from business aircraft using Quonset, Westerly and Green Airports, as
these aircraft are typically worth several million dollars. The regulation also
snares private aircraft bringing tourism dollars into Block Island and Newport
(each of these airports has hundreds of out of state arrivals each month).
Rather than providing the intended effect, the regulation causes pilots and
businesses to avoid Rhode Island rather than risk a substantial lien. One pilot
on the Cherokee Pilot's Association Chat sums it up saying: "If I had to go
there, I'd fly to CT, rent a car, do my business in RI without even refueling,
and send the rulers of RI a receipt for the money they contributed to CT" rather
than risking a substantial lien. Once again, the state is chasing away business
that would generate far more taxes than the meager collections that will result
from this ill-conceived regulation. When are our leaders going to wake up and
realize that the reason companies are not locating here is because it is far too
expensive to do business here?


Ron McKinnon wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:08:31 -0400, Ray Andraka wrote:

I also saw the article on avweb this morning. Being a Rhode Island
based pilot, I am deeply troubled by this. I have spent a bit of time
today trying to find the legislation that enacts this, and so far have
not
found it. If you have a bill or resolution number, I could use that when
I call my rep to bitch about it. We did have a bill in the legislature
to
repeal sales and use taxes on aircraft related matters here in the state
to help encourage business. This news is diametrically opposed to
what had been proposed in the bill earlier this year.

http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/r...DOTAX_2510.pdf

Interesting. This document raises a number of questions in my mind, such
as:

This document specifies the effective date as April 02, 2003. Has this
been in force since then? If so, why are we just aware of it now?, and if
not, can the state impose a new tax retroactively? (It would seem
to be unconstitutional, US Constitution, article 9 ..."No bill of attainder
or ex post facto law shall be passed.")

I'm also thinking that charging the tax on aircraft relocated to RI,
from some other state, is effectively a 'tax or duty laid on articles
exported from another state', which would also seem to be
denied by the US Constitution (article 9, also).

What is the 'emergency' justification? Is this justification
within the purview of Tax Administrator?

What legal/public process is required in order to cause such a regulation
to come into effect? Did this occur? Can a new tax be imposed without
legislative or public input? What kind of notice period is required for
such a new tax? Or is that the 'emergency' - an end-run around the
nuisance of a public process?

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Then they should have worded it to say exactly just that. As it's
currently worded, it says otherwise.


Mr. Foley:

Non-residents are not subject to the 7% R.I. Use Tax. This regulation

applies to persons or companies that may have some type of residency or

business location in Rhode Island.

"Ron McKinnon" wrote in message news:rOt3b.865093

This document specifies the effective date as April 02, 2003. Has this
been in force since then? If so, why are we just aware of it now?,

I assume the tax department just interpretted the existing law to apply to
this category of use that they hadn't previously been enforcing.