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

Classic Aero-TV: Remembering Bob Hoover

From 2023 (YouTube Version): Legacy of a Titan Robert (Bob) Anderson Hoover was a fighter pilot, test pilot, flight instructor, and air show superstar. More so, Bob Hoover was an i>[...]

ANN FAQ: Follow Us On Instagram!

Get The Latest in Aviation News NOW on Instagram Are you on Instagram yet? It's been around for a few years, quietly picking up traction mostly thanks to everybody's new obsession >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.15.24)

Aero Linx: B-52H Stratofortress The B-52H Stratofortress is a long-range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions. The bomber is capable of flying at high subsonic spee>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.15.24):Altimeter Setting

Altimeter Setting The barometric pressure reading used to adjust a pressure altimeter for variations in existing atmospheric pressure or to the standard altimeter setting (29.92).>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.16.24)

"Knowing that we play an active part in bettering people's lives is extremely rewarding. My team and I are very thankful for the opportunity to be here and to help in any way we ca>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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