If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 .... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aviation Ebay Madness... | Richard Stewart | Military Aviation | 17 | February 9th 04 10:17 AM |