I wanted to bring this up for discussion to what I call a well informed audience, some of you have maybe even been down this path before.
I was served with paperwork from the Department of Revenue after my recent airplane acquisition, it was purchased from a LLC that the previous seller held for liability protection, and sold to my LLC which I have for the same purpose.
A signed affidavit from the seller stating that it was not used for business operations was submitted to the state, along with a copy of the bill of sale which they requested. Furthermore we indicated that the airplane is "experimental" and thus cannot be used for compensation, hire, or "business operations"
Here's what the state responded:
"...the State's position is because the seller had this registered in his business name, it is not Exempt. Even if the only "business use" is to protect the owner from personal liability, that is still a business use..."
This really gets me worked up, and I am being faced with two choices- fight it, or just pay it. Ideally, AOPA, EAA, NBAA, etc would all be interested in solving this confusion at the state level.
What do you guys think? Any other states that I can reference that have a differing opinion on this?
Here's the state's clause on what constitutes a "casual sale" which is the basis of our argument:
(a) A sale in which the tangible personal property involved was not acquired or held by the seller for use in the operation of his business or for resale; or
I was served with paperwork from the Department of Revenue after my recent airplane acquisition, it was purchased from a LLC that the previous seller held for liability protection, and sold to my LLC which I have for the same purpose.
A signed affidavit from the seller stating that it was not used for business operations was submitted to the state, along with a copy of the bill of sale which they requested. Furthermore we indicated that the airplane is "experimental" and thus cannot be used for compensation, hire, or "business operations"
Here's what the state responded:
"...the State's position is because the seller had this registered in his business name, it is not Exempt. Even if the only "business use" is to protect the owner from personal liability, that is still a business use..."
This really gets me worked up, and I am being faced with two choices- fight it, or just pay it. Ideally, AOPA, EAA, NBAA, etc would all be interested in solving this confusion at the state level.
What do you guys think? Any other states that I can reference that have a differing opinion on this?
Here's the state's clause on what constitutes a "casual sale" which is the basis of our argument:
(a) A sale in which the tangible personal property involved was not acquired or held by the seller for use in the operation of his business or for resale; or
Last edited: