Just Bought A Plane? STAY OUT OF FLORIDA !

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:09:37 -0500, Mike Murdock wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
SNIP
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?

How about the Boston Globe with an Associated Press story? It includes a
quote by Louis Meiners, a Florida aviation tax consultant:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...f_state_taxes/

-Mike

"A number of other states, from Florida to Washington, are doing the
same as they grapple with budget shortfalls and as the Internet makes it
easier to track the comings and goings of aircraft."

Non constituent (voting) $$$ are easy prey for politicians. Florida in
2007 informed many counties and municipalities that the tried and true
state funds they often relied were going to be unavailable (cut). These
communities, where the voters are, have suffered especially in Capital
Improvements (fire, police, water facilities).

To fund the shortfalls in state budgets, Florida sees these $$$ as easy
pickings. For now at least. Sure beats upping a constituent tax and the
constituents are more than happy to get tax dollars from non
constituents.

On 2008-03-25, Bryan Martin wrote:
The AOPA may have been sucked into this tempest the same as many others
and is now aggressively trying to cut through the fog to get at the truth.

I strongly doubt the AOPA is in the habit of crying wolf. I'd be astounded
to learn that they raised the issue without checking into it to make sure
it's real.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard wrote:


I strongly doubt the AOPA is in the habit of crying wolf.

Actually, I look at the Friday spam...er, newsletter, with new
skepticism since a few years ago when they expounded on the dreadful new
South Dakota requirement for a photo ID for "all pilots."

I corresponded with the state DOT aviation guy, who patiently explained
that they do ask for some local ID from in-state pilots, but who'd been
getting toasted by many out-of-staters complaining about the erroneous
impression the AOPA article gave. It's not the only time I've found
Boyer over-dramatizing a situation, like several actions by Minnesota's
Metropolitan Airports Commission, just for the sake of having an issue
that looks more controversial than it really is. "We're bravely fighting
for you again this week!"

It's a great organization. I'm just sayin'...

"Stella Starr" wrote

It's not the only time I've found Boyer over-dramatizing a situation,
like several actions by Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission, just
for the sake of having an issue that looks more controversial than it
really is. "We're bravely fighting for you again this week!"

It's a great organization. I'm just sayin'...

I'm forced to agree with you, on this "broad" concept.....

But...

Just this once! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Bryan Martin wrote:
Probably because AOPA received a bunch of e-mails from members
expressing concern over this issue. Those members probably heard about
the issue form the internet through e-mails or web site articles. It
could be that the whole issue stated with the ANN article and then
snowballed into the present fog of rumor and misinformation mixed with
a small grain of fact.

Indeed. Here is Phil Boyer's letter to the Florida governer:

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080320fl.pdf

In it he explicitly states what motivated the letter:

"I am writing because of the rapidly growing concern expressed by our
members over what appears to be recent aggressive enforcement of Florida's
Use Tax, which has been the subject of numerous articles in the aviation
media."

Only Aero News Network (ANN) appears to (so far) have any stories on the
subject.

The AOPA may have been sucked into this tempest
the same as many others and is now aggressively trying to cut through
the fog to get at the truth.

Hopefully they can find out how much substance there is behind ANN's
stories.

I ran into this tax scam in Michigan after buying my airplane there.
Actually the broker was there, the seller and buyer were both out of state.
Michigan has a 90-day period, during which we allowed Indiana to have our
money for fuel, hangar, rental car, etc. when we went to Michigan from our
main home in Alabama.

Also, more than 90 days a year in Michigan, you have to register the
airplane. Not a big deal, $30/yr. But registration triggers use tax if you
haven't already paid sales tax.

Stan

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:58:06 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:

I ran into this tax scam in Michigan after buying my airplane there.
Actually the broker was there, the seller and buyer were both out of state.
Michigan has a 90-day period, during which we allowed Indiana to have our
money for fuel, hangar, rental car, etc. when we went to Michigan from our
main home in Alabama.

Also, more than 90 days a year in Michigan, you have to register the
airplane. Not a big deal, $30/yr. But registration triggers use tax if you
haven't already paid sales tax.


Annnnndddd.... (drum roll) IF you valid receipt from the seller is
less then what the state of Michigan tax man thinks is fair market
value, they'll base the tax on THEIR book value.

We had one of our local chapter members find a really good buy on a
plane out-of-state. The guy wanted to move it fast (really needed the
money) so it was a great deal.. When he registered and paid the tax he
received an additional bill that valued the plane at roughly twice
what he'd paid for it. When he showed them the receipt they didn't
care. As it wasn't a super expensive plane he wasn't willing to spend
far more fighting it than he'd save if he won.


Stan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com