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-07.07.25

Airborne-NextGen-07.08.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.25.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-06.26.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.27.25

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

Airborne 06.30.25: US v ADS-B Misuse, NatÂ’l STOL Fire, Volocopter Resumes

Also: Netherlands Donates 18 F16s, 2 737s Collide On Ramp, E-7 Wedgetail Cut, AgEagle's 100th In S Korea The Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act was introduced in the House by Represent>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (07.06.25)

“This delivery represents more than just a milestone. It symbolizes our shared commitment to national security and our unwavering support for the men and women who serve on t>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (07.06.25)

Aero Linx: Vintage Wings of Canada Foundation Vintage Wings of Canada is a not-for-profit, charitable organization with a collection of historically significant aircraft and is run>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: Portrait of the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation

From 2023 (YouTube Edition): To Preserve and Teach Incorporated as a non-profit domestic corporation in June 1997, the Army Aviation Heritage Foundation (AAHF) is a one-of-a-kind, >[...]

Airborne-NextGen 07.01.25: Volocopter Returns, B23 Energic, Iran Tech In UAVs?

Also: Air Taxis May Be Close, AgEagle Sells 100th, VAI Likes Bedford, AURA AERO Cleans Up Volocopter has resumed work towards the certification of its VoloCity eVTOL, this time und>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC