New plane and spring break trip to Cali in April.

[JoseCuervo]

First thing you need to know is that if the airplane shows up ANYWHERE in the state of California within 12 months of purchase, you WILL be subject to the CA use tax which is around 8% or so of the purchase price. This is regardless of any tax you might pay elsewhere or your residency and permanent home of the airplane after the sale.

The CA Board of Equalization is ruthless at enforcing this. You might not even get the bill until several years later, but they will come after you. The CA BOE is infamous at this sort of thing - they have folks that scour fuel receipts, FBO ramp records, ATC records...etc and compare that data against FAA registrations.

How come, if they WILL come after you and the CA BOE is "infamous", you can't point to a single instance of a family from Iowa getting taxed out the bejeeezus for a trip to DisneyLand? If they were truly "infamous", there would be lots of cases of this.

Instead, all you can point to is a somewhat clunky website by some guy who appears to be an "expert" in promoting himself, his book for sale, and the need for his services. Again, he did well, he was able to get his web address into a aviation forum, get some clicks, get pushed up a bit higher in the Google search results.

Perhaps, but in fairness to them, the result of three separate consultations that cost me nothing, the end result was them telling me 'if you keep the airplane out of CA for a year, you won't need to pay us anything'.

I am guessing you got full value for your consultations, they are worth just exactly the amount you paid for them, nothing.

Yes, I could give you advice of " keep the airplane out of CA for a year, you won't need to pay us anything" and I would be 100% correct, and I could then pass myself off as an Aviation Tax Expert.

In fact, I am guessing, if the OP wants to hire me, I could get him a "letter" of determination from the State of Calif that his airplane WILL NOT be subject to use tax if he makes a one-time only trip to Riverside Calif. And, as an "expert", I could convince you that the reason that letter was obtained was because of my expert services, and not because that is the standard policy of the State of Calif.

Sometimes, things don't pass a smell test, and no matter how much internet legend there is, it doesn't make them so. Last year I was in Calif and bought fuel at a self-serve pump at an airport. Didn't have to input an N-number, so, not sure how they can "scour" the fuel records to get that information.

Not to mention NBAA. They would be warning their members about this since the value of the aircraft flown are much higher. Yet I have never heard a word about it until this thread.

Not to mention DisneyLand, SeaWorld, Knotts, a 100 Wineries in Napa, and anybody else who relies on tourists. No way the business communities would want a tourist unfriendly plan.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Not to mention DisneyLand, SeaWorld, Knotts, a 100 Wineries in Napa, and anybody else who relies on tourists. No way the business communities would want a tourist unfriendly plan.

You must not have dealt with the state of CA much. They are notorious for cutting their nose off to spit their face. The state will 'boycott' Arizona business and then demand that AZ provide them with electricity.

 

[Fearless Tower]

After lounging a little this morning I've done little research and like the KSAN for first stop. Fuel darn pricy but I wouldn't fill her up there anyway. I trained in class c with extremely busy class d airport adjacent to it so little radio traffic would be good to brush up on.

If you are planning on going to San Diego, forget Lindbergh. Just go to MYF. You are at most about 10 min away from downtown and the fuel is much cheaper.

 

[johnrweb]

When an airliner flies transit across the skies of California, each CA County that the plane flies over will tax the airline according to how how it stayed in the air over that County. Not too long ago, one of the County in CA went to court tax the satellites in space.

 

[JoseCuervo]

You must not have dealt with the state of CA much. They are notorious for cutting their nose off to spit their face. The state will 'boycott' Arizona business and then demand that AZ provide them with electricity.

But you still think the OP will have to pay the tax?

 

[Scott@KTYR]

​

FYI - Florida has a use Tax if you stay ovr 20 days.

Effective July 1, 2010, a nonresident of Florida [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]will be exempt from use tax on his/her aircraft if the aircraft enters and remains in the state for no more than a total of 20 days during the 6 month period after the date of purchase. For more information, see Tax Information Publication number 10A01-11 issued on June 29, 2010.
[/FONT][/FONT]http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/forms/2010/gt800008.pdf
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/tips/tip10a01-11.html

 

[Fearless Tower]

But you still think the OP will have to pay the tax?

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not a tax professional.

However, I do know that the legitimacy of a tax claim hasn't stopped the state of CA from attempting to collect on what they perceived as tax due.

Here is a personal example of why I am such a pessimist on this subject: I'm active duty Navy. I'm a legal resident of Arizona. My state income tax returns have always been filed with AZ. In 2006 I was stationed in Rhode Island. I transferred to San Diego in 2007. In 2008, I got a nasty letter from the state of CA demanding that I immediately file a CA state return for 2006 and pay all tax due. Their basis for their claim is that they had determined (from my Federal return) that I had filed from a CA address. I was able to fight it, but had to jump through some hoops, prove that I was military and after some hate mail from my CPA, they left me alone.

So while the tax pros may be trying to 'scare' up business, I personally believe their claims to have a little more credibility than sone folks here seem to think.

 

[Aeric]

What is surprising to me is the fact that it took 28 posts to fully slam California.
To the OP, enjoy your visit to this state.

 

[DesertNomad]

When an airliner flies transit across the skies of California, each CA County that the plane flies over will tax the airline according to how how it stayed in the air over that County. Not too long ago, one of the County in CA went to court tax the satellites in space.

My dad worked for United Airlines (based in Chicago). He lived in Nevada. He would get a letter form California every year for the time he spent in California airspace (each time he flew in/out of San Francisco). They insisted he pay income tax for the time spent working in CA airspace.

United had a form letter he could use to reply to CA and make them go away.

 

[Kristin]

However, I do know that the legitimacy of a tax claim hasn't stopped the state of CA from attempting to collect on what they perceived as tax due.

That I agree with. If the state had a cheap way of sending a letter to everyone who flew into the state, they probably would do that. It is not much different than all those Nigerian scams. Send out a million solicitations/threatening letters, and so who pays whether they owe it or not. I just don't believe that California has started to check ATC records or has access to fuel slips.

California can tax if the aircraft was purchased for use in California. An aircraft purchased by private party and registered in another state is pretty clearly not for use in California. If one of these three conditions apply, then the state may presume that taxes are owed if the aircraft was:

Purchased by a California resident as defined in section 516 of the California Vehicle Code (Effective January 1, 2010, a California resident is defined to include a closely held corporation or limited liability company if 50 percent or more of the shares or membership interests are held by shareholders or members who are residents of California as defined in section 516 of the Vehicle Code.), or
Subject to California's vehicle registration, or aircraft and vessel property tax laws, during the first 12 months of ownership, or
Used or stored in this state more than one-half of the time during the first 12 months of ownership.

It seems unlikely that any of these would apply to the OP. If one is a California resident, that is another matter. I understand it is also a better ironclad defense if you already paid taxes in another state.