In article .com,
"Limus" wrote:

I think we are missing the point on what Ken was asking about. The
issue is not about paying propert tax in the county where aircraft is
based. The issue is about counties sending fishing expedition letters
based on the data from the FAA database alone, having no proof
whatsoever that glider is actually stored in the county. Now imagine
if you would receive letter from the county stating that they think you
violated speed limit on their roads and unless you can prove that you
haven't been in their county for the past 5 years you owe them fee for
the traffic violation ! That would be ridiculous, but so is this! Why
do I have to spend my time and money to defend myself when I did
nothing wrong ?

I have no problem with counties sending notifications that would let me
know that if the glider is stored in the county I owe tax. However, I
think counties should be required by law to provide significant proof
that aircraft is stored in the county before threathening with
penalties for not suppying them with information.

Having said that, when I received a letter from LA county demanding to
supply them with information about the aircraft, I did what people
suggested here to do - called them up, let them know aircraft is not in
LA county , then send them a mail with an invoice for the arcraft
purchase and letter stating where aircraft resides. Haven't heard from
them since and still waiting to hear from the county where the aircraft
is stored.


Limus


Yes, this is my point. Fair is fair, and I'll pay my fair share to the
County where my glider is based. I still have *some* Kansas
conservative principles remaining.

What I feel is wrong is that Kern County is demanding that I supply
information about my glider's whereabouts and value, with no evidence
offered that it's ever been there, and threatening penalties for
non-compliance.

If this is considered acceptable behavior, imagine getting such a notice
from every single County in a two state area! It might be more
lucrative than spamming for V|@gr@...

When the City of Cincinnati sent me a $50 invoice for transient aircraft
usage of their facility, they let me know the day and hour my tail
number was recorded. With the help of AOPA we found a Twin based in
Dayton whose N-number could have been mistaken for mine, if you swapped
a B for a 8. I wrote them a polite note and never heard back.

My fallback plan was to get them to sign a landing form so I could claim
a straight-distance record from MEV, but since the landing was at 10pm
on 12/25 it probably would have been denied. ;-)

Ken