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-05.06.24

Airborne-NextGen-04.30.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.01.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers--05.02.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.03.24

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 (05.05.24): Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System

Omnidirectional Approach Lighting System ODALS consists of seven omnidirectional flashing lights located in the approach area of a nonprecision runway. Five lights are located on t>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.05.24)

"Polaris Dawn, the first of the program’s three human spaceflight missions, is targeted to launch to orbit no earlier than summer 2024. During the five-day mission, the crew >[...]

Airborne 05.06.24: Gone West-Dick Rutan, ICON BK Update, SpaceX EVA Suit

Also: 1800th E-Jet, Uncle Sam Sues For Landing Gear, Embraer Ag Plane, Textron Parts A friend of the family reported that Lt. Col. (Ret.) Richard Glenn Rutan flew west on Friday, M>[...]

Airborne 05.03.24: Advanced Powerplant Solutions, PRA Runway Woes, Drone Racing

Also: Virgin Galactic, B-29 Doc to Allentown, Erickson Fire-Fighters Bought, FAA Reauthorization After dealing with a big letdown after the unexpected decision by Skyreach to disco>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.06xx.24)

“Our aircrews are trained and capable of rapidly shifting from operational missions to humanitarian roles. We planned to demonstrate how we, and our BORSTAR partners, respond>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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