Purchase Of Crop-Duster Does Not Qualify For Arkansas Agricultural Exemption | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.13.24

Airborne-NextGen-05.14.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.15.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-05.16.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.17.24

Wed, Sep 07, 2016

Purchase Of Crop-Duster Does Not Qualify For Arkansas Agricultural Exemption

Ruling Issued By State's Department Of Finance And Administration

The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration recently issued a ruling on the application of the Arkansas agricultural exemption to a taxpayer's purchase of an aircraft. The taxpayer in question operated an agricultural flying service and purchased a used aircraft outside the state and brought it into Arkansas to use in the business.

The Department conducted an audit and determined that because airplanes are specifically excluded from the definition of farm equipment and machinery, the purchase was subject to use tax and consequently assessed use tax and interest.

The taxpayer appealed, arguing that the purchase should qualify for the agricultural exemption under GR-51(B)(1)(a). This regulation defines "farm equipment and machinery" as agricultural implements used exclusively and directly for the agricultural production of food or fiber as a commercial business or the agricultural production of grass sod or nursery products as a commercial business. Although it does exclude airplanes, it specifically includes "sprayer" and "spreaders." The taxpayer contended that because the airplane was used solely in crop-dusting, it should be considered a "sprayer" or "spreader" and did not fit the meaning of "airplane" as used in applicable Arkansas statutory laws and rules.

The Appellate Court ultimately upheld the Department's assessment, finding that although the taxpayer provided evidence showing the aircraft had no function other than the application of seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals, it did fit the plain and ordinary meaning of the word airplane and, therefore, was excluded from the exemption.

(Source: Ryan Tax Services news release. Image from file)

FMI: www.ryan.com

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.16.24): Instrument Runway

Instrument Runway A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a precision or nonprecision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.16.24)

Aero Linx: Alaska Airmen's Association The Alaska Airmen's Association includes over 2,000 members—we are one of the largest General Aviation communities in the country. We s>[...]

Airborne 05.15.24: Ghost Sq MidAir, B-2 Junked, Dream Chaser Readies

Also: Flt School Security, G600 Steep-Approach, Honduran Aid, PW545D Cert Two aircraft performing at the Fort Lauderdale Air Show clipped wings during a routine last Sunday, spooki>[...]

Airborne 05.10.24: Icon Auction, Drunk MedEvac Pilot, Bell ALFA

Also: SkyReach Parts Support, Piper Service Ctr, Airliner Near-Miss, Airshow London The Judge overseeing Icon's convoluted Chapter 11 process has approved $9 million in Chapter 11 >[...]

Airborne Affordable Flyers 05.16.24: PRA Runway, Wag-Aero Sold, Young Eagles

Also: Paramotor Champ's, Electric Ultralight, ICON BK Update, Burt Rutan at Oshkosh! The Popular Rotorcraft Association is reaching out for help in rebuilding their private runway >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC