Desperate Statement by SnF Called 'Inaccurate' By FATA President, Others...

Despite the many details, reports, quotes and corroborating stories that have supported the ANN investigations and series into problems with Florida Department Of Revenue Taxation decisions, Sun n Fun President John Burton has gone on the attack (in an apparent attempt to dissuade reports of sinking attendance figures and exhibitor unrest) and labeled them 'inaccurate."

Really. No kidding. We could only WISH we were making THIS mess up.

With the reports, documents, and tax bills of a number of pilots having been publicly documented over the last year, it appears that SnF is trying to make others think that ANN has made this story up -- until you factor in... well, the facts.

Pesky things, those facts. They sure get in the way of an attempt to evade criticism.

When Fly-Ins Attack

In an email report reportedly sent to a number of persons with an interest in the long-declining Fly-In, just before the close of business on Friday, Burton decries that the published reports aren't true.

"Sun 'n Fun has recently been made aware of media reports of a 'Florida Tax Ripoff' and the impact this may have on the Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, which opens Tuesday, April 8, and runs through Sunday, April 13. The reports erroneously describe "non (Florida)-resident pilots who have been caught in the FL tax trap" and who have been "targeted for 'use tax' by agents of the state's Department of Revenue . . . despite the fact that the targeted aircraft were not owned or operated by state residents. This is inaccurate and misleading."

The Burton memo skirts a number of the salient issues, and attempts to avoid direct conflict with the current tax legislation, as well as making a number of statements that have nothing to do with the ANN story (or other published reports on the matter), until it starts in on the meat of the matter. Alarmingly, Burton does specifically report (in referring to the FL Use Tax), via an offsetted addendum that, "*It DOES NOT impact aircraft owners who have purchased an airplane within the past six months and have it titled, registered or licensed in another state (other than Florida)."

ANN believes this statement to be without foundation, and direct contradiction of multiple published reports from a number of respected sources, besides ANN.

And The Facts Are...

Let us be clear, we believe that we can prove (and have done so... many times) Burton's memo and statement is in direct conflict with the facts. Statements from the Florida Department Of Revenue, statements from the Florida Aviation Trades Association, National Air Transportation Association, the mighty Aircraft Owner's and Pilots' Association... and worse -- the direct testimony, reports and records of pilots who have been caught in the "FL Tax Trap" ALL contradict the apparently-errant (again) Burton.    

In just one case (of too many), a Piper Meridian turbo-prop, brought into Florida for training at a well-known flight training operation in central Florida, for approximately one week exposed a NON-Florida resident to a $125K tax bill for an aircraft that had been in his possession but a few weeks. The pilot in question reported that he was having problems seeing any way out but to pay the tax, and fight it later, due to the rapidly escalating penalties and interests that were piling up each day he failed to pay the bill... And yes, we have confirmed that this non-FL pilot paid the bill.

FDOR officials did not refute ANN's reporting of the stories done so far and have in fact commented on them, on the record. They even related a number of other such taxation decisions and indicated that the main reason that the aviation industry was having this problem was because the RV and Boating Industries had better lobbyists to fight off such taxation provisions.  

The emailed SnF statement released in the late afternoon, Good Friday on the eve of a major holiday, should have prevented much of a counter-response (which may have been its intent), but ANN was able to get some expert analysis by people with solid factual knowledge of the FL Tax situation.

OK... If We Were Wrong, Why Do So Many Experts Agree With Us?

Michael Slingluff, the high-regarded President of the Florida Aviation Trades Association has been a leader in the intense fight for aggressive revisions in FL's tax code. When informed of the text of Burton's message, Slingluff, reported that it was the Burton statement that was, in fact, "inaccurate."

Yes, he specifically replied that the SnF email was, "Inaccurate...  and, in fact, purchasers of new aircraft that have traveled to FL within 6 months have had the FL use tax applied to them, even though there is no nexus, other than pleasure, for their visit to Florida. The use tax is formulated by FDOR as sales tax paid in Florida, less any taxes paid in the domiciled state -- the domiciled state tax is credited against the difference of the total FL Tax. This has been applied to new Single Engine aircraft up through Large Jet aircraft."

Slingluff was admittedly surprised by the SnF memo and reported that, "FATA, AOPA and other various organizations are seeking a moratorium from the use tax while legislation is sponsored in Tallahassee."

Finally, Slingluff added that, "The press coverage by ANN and AOPA has been truthful and accurate."

Some Cirrus Pilots Afraid of FL

Some new Cirrus Owner's and Pilot's Association owner/members have been avoiding Florida for fear of similar treatment... as other Cirrus owners have ALREADY been targeted by FDOR. Curtis Sanford, President of COPA, reported that "COPA has had members cancel their attendance at our Florida events due to the state's use tax policy on recently purchased aircraft. Given the number of newly purchased aircraft in our membership, it makes us question the viability of holding fly-in events in Florida."

And Let's Not Forget AOPA's Extensive (and Corroborating) Work On This Subject!

Phil Boyer, president of AOPA, a tireless (and extremely effective) advocate for the aviation industry has just filed a letter with the State of Florida, asking for a moratorium against further tax attacks against non-resident pilots. AOPA coverage of the issue specifically states that, "The state Department of Revenue has recently been charging Florida use tax on any airplane that is brought to the state within six months of being bought if the owner did not pay at least 6-percent sales tax at the time of purchase."

Boyer wrote a forceful and reasoned letter imploring Governor Charlie Crist to impose a moratorium on the FL Use Tax until the legislature could deal with the matter appropriately. We must note that SnF President John Burton was copied on the document and his name is in plain sight at the completion of the two page letter... so we really find it hard to believe that Burton could find ANY reasonable basis to refute ANN (and AOPA's) carefully researched coverage of this serious issue. So the question is this... if Burton had to know all this and was so informed by all the coverage by ANN (which he obviously read), and other media outlets (as well as industry and trade associations)... what could possibly motivate him to put so many people's property at risk by making such questionable statements that seem to be in such direct opposition to KNOWN facts and published reports and legislation?

Does 'SnF' really mean CYA?

Also on late Friday, ANN became aware that an aviation association website had posted a story based on the SnF report. When questioned by ANN, their reporter admitted that he did not think to ask for ANN's data, details, research and other information to refute/corroborate the SnF memo. Following that, a Senior official of the organization, seeing "serious problems" with the SnF report, pulled the story from the site and personally called ANN Editor-In-Chief Jim Campbell to apologize.
(NOTE: This was a classy thing to do under tough circumstances, regardless... and it was appreciated and accepted-- ANN E-I-C Jim Campbell).

This is not the first time that SnF reports have been called into question. In an April 2003 ANN Report, after years of urging (by ANN, among others) an examination of the veracity of SnF attendance figures, some startling details emerged. An April 27, 2003 report noted that, "Last year, we expressed open incredulity at SnF's claims, on these pages; but the locals in politics in Lakeland and surrounding Polk County refused to examine their own pet project. Heck -- we like big airshow attendance! We like big fly-in attendance -- we're aviation press, ferpetesake. What we don't like is being treated like idiots.

Last week, even The Lakeland Ledger, an unabashed cheerleader for the biggest thing in Lakeland, raised an eyebrow. Reporter Rick Rousos did a lot of homework, examining, among other things, SnF's 2001 tax filings. He noted, 'Sun 'n Fun claimed an 'estimated attendance' of 645,000 for its week-long fly-in in April 2001. But Sun 'n Fun's tax and internal records show the attendance was less than 250,000. Of that number, 86,515 actually paid to get in...'

Rousos was liberal in his estimates (and told ANN yesterday that he, 'gave them every benefit of the doubt') of how many could actually have shown up. For instance, he counted seven days' attendance for each of several identified groups -- volunteers (4000) and campers (12,000) were even counted separately, although it is well-known that a lot of the volunteers are camping. He counted 503 exhibitors six times (each gets six passes), then seven times (seven days), and then added a 65% fudge factor, giving SnF "35,000" exhibitor-person-days. He counted the 1100 VIPs twice. All this "rounding up" still gave him a figure of 242,000 for the show's attendance, about 400,000 shy of the organization's official report."

Worse, though, are the implications for those who may hear SnF's reports and NOT understand the true threat to their personal property by getting the FACTS. SnF reports that they "...talked with the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Revenue and he assured me (Burton) that, number 1, there will not be state tax agents doing ramp checks, and that out-of-state pilots have nothing to fear," during the Lakeland event.

If FDOR does, indeed, avoid Lakeland... this still places aircraft at outlying airports, that stay for a night or more, at risk for a future tax bill.

So... The TRUTH Is, There Still May Be A Risk

Picture it this way... Mom and Pop GA fly their new 2008 Machbuster Thundercrunch to Florida so that Pop GA can go to Lakeland with his buddies and Mom GA and the little GA kiddies go to see "the Mouse." Pop GA, having braved the insanity of the Lake Parker arrival once already (which is enough for many pilots), lands at Kissimmee (or any other outlying FL Airport), offloads his GA family, drives to Lakeland, returns in a few days and flies home to another state -- where he lives, works and keeps his aircraft. Months later, he gets a $30,000 tax bill for his short trip to FL.... even though he is NOT a FL resident, owns no property in FL, does not work in FL and only visits their once every other year or so...

His crime?

Having a new airplane, believing John Burton, and having been surveiled by an agent of the FDOR. Yes, he's in for a rude surprise. There are a number of possible scenarios that expose new aircraft owners, from out of state, to risks of additional taxation and any possible confusion, obfuscation (or whatever else you want to call it) on the part of the Sun n Fun folks, can't change that possibility. Period. Simply put, FL Tax law just isn't all that fair right now and while this matter exposes people to such risks, it might be best to avoid them until your aircraft has a few more hours under it's wings... at least six months worth.

We must note, for the sake of trying to find a silver lining in his mess, that if just ONE small part of Burton's attack on ANN has ANY veracity, we hope it involves his assertion that state officials will be avoiding the Fly-In, itself. If that is the case, those who have been taxed by FL under this Use Tax game may have a defense in the FDOR's apparent SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT of the tax regs. Mind you; the other side of the coin means that FDOR may not have a choice but to target SnF, and conduct some level of surveillance, in order to not see their organization accused of selective taxation -- and risk the possibility of having to refund the monies it has collected under this program.

Summing Up (Finally!)

OK... the facts are these... some new aircraft owners who do not reside/operate in Florida may find an unacceptable risk of unfair taxation by coming to the state until their aircraft have aged some. We do not see how Sun n Fun can minimize this risk -- and we conjecture that their considerable fears of the possible failure of their flailing Fly-In may be pushing them to "bend" the truth. We see this as unfortunate, sad and shameful... and worse than anything else, bad for aviation.

Sun n Fun had an opportunity to be an activist in this matter, to get in front of the problem, and be a "good aviation citizen" by helping to protect their fellow pilots who may be at risk of unfair taxation. Instead, the only concerns that seem to be in force in the SnF memo revolve around their own self-interest. We hope that is not the case, but based on our long experience with Burton and others in the SnF organization, we admit that this is one of the first possibilities that has crossed our minds.

Sun N Fun Blew What Little (if Any) Credibility They Retained

We find it hard to believe that they sent out this memo with any possibility that they didn't know that the contents were seriously errant/flawed and exposed their visitors to the potential of serious risk to their personal property. If that is the case, the letter may in fact, expose them to complaints of fraud -- as did their many errant untrue statements about past attendance figures.

And, of course, we can't help but note that (once again) SnF has decided that attacking the messenger, rather than the problem, is to be their course of action... which sure as hell hasn't worked for them, in the past.

ANN is researching this matter carefully and will have more to report shortly.

FMI: Click Here To Learn More