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-04.29.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.23.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.24.24 Airborne-FltTraining-04.25.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.26.24

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 (04.26.24): DETRESFA (Distress Phrase)

DETRESFA (Distress Phrase) The code word used to designate an emergency phase wherein there is reasonable certainty that an aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and i>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (04.26.24)

"General aviation is at the forefront of developing and introducing innovative technologies that will transform the entire aviation industry..." Source: Kyle Martin, Vice President>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.27.24): Direct

Direct Straight line flight between two navigational aids, fixes, points, or any combination thereof. When used by pilots in describing off-airway routes, points defining direct ro>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.27.24)

Aero Linx: Women in Corporate Aviation Women in Corporate Aviation support individuals seeking career advancement and professional development in the business aviation industry. Me>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (04.27.24)

“We would like to thank the many volunteers that help throughout the year to pull off the event, as well as the several reviewers, judges, and SURVICE staff that provide team>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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