To reach a position of authority one must repeatedly show their incompetence - Homesteading Today
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of Homesteading Today!    
Homesteading Today

Go Back   Homesteading Today > General Homesteading Forums > Homesteading Questions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 02/14/05, 10:13 PM
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 2,007
To reach a position of authority one must repeatedly show their incompetence

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=108790

The state of Maine, however, through a ruling of the Maine Revenue Services division, has determined that the removal of manure is not a part of commercial agricultural production.

At the center of the controversy is Andrew Watson, who owns Top of the Hill Stables in Etna.
Watson breeds Standardbred racehorses on the farm, which has been in has family for five generations, and now has about 75 animals there.
Watson recently purchased a $11,400 Kubota off-road utility vehicle to clean out stalls, haul bedding and hay, and to pick rocks from fields.
“Basically, this is my wheelbarrow,” Watson said this week. In fact, if he went to his local store and bought a wheelbarrow for his farm, he would be exempt from sales tax because it is used for agricultural production.
But when he applied for that exemption for his Kubota, Maine Revenue Services denied his request and appeal for a sales tax refund of $570.
“In this case, absent evidence showing that the equipment is equipped to literally ‘clean’ the stalls, I conclude that your stated primary use of the equipment is to remove the used bedding and waste from the stall area after the stalls have been otherwise cleaned,” wrote Jerome D. Gerard, acting executive director of MRS, in the final ruling issued in September.“I find that the removal of waste following cleaning is incidental to the production of horses,” Gerard ruled.
__________________
life's a holiday

People hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe.

Last edited by primroselane; 02/14/05 at 10:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02/15/05, 02:06 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 363
Weeelll since its not an agricultural (by) product it should be in town shouldnt it? Perhaps he needs to dump it in urban rubbish bins, preferably those belonging to the wise men who made this ruling?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02/15/05, 07:20 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SE TN/SW NC
Posts: 313
Since Jerome Gerard likes to split hairs, Andrew Watson could point out the obvious, that a wheelbarrow is also used to remove waste following cleaning, yet is an allowable exemption.

If removing waste following cleanup is incidental, then Jerome Gerard needs to explain something else. How long could one remain in good standing with the health agencies if that waste were not removed, and how the health of the livestock could not be affected.

It seems obvious that waste removal is not so incidental after all. I guess idiocy a requirement for any political office that deals with taxation of the public.

Bob
__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
George W. Bush 8/5/2004
source: White House Web Site
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02/15/05, 08:24 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 7,610
I just bought a No-bull castrator here in Minnesota. They looked it up twice, had to charge sales tax.

Don't get that one. What other use does it have but ag-related?

Here a farmer needs to pay tax on anything like a wheel barrow, as that can have multiple uses that are not ag related. Even a tractor snow blower gets taxed, even if you are using it only for the farm. A very odd patchwork of taxes.

But, the castrator, that one really puzzles me.

--->Paul
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02/15/05, 08:30 AM
Mansfield, VT for 200 yrs
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: VT
Posts: 3,736
Oh you mean those castrator thingies are for animals? My husband thought they were for terrorizing the young men who want to date your daughter...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02/15/05, 08:54 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,622
Maine loves to call itself an agricultural state, when in fact it has some major regulatory problems. Case in point: you can't sell poultry in this state unless it has been slaughtered at a state-inspected facility. Problem? There currently is no state-inspected facility, mostly because the inspectors are so gangster and slow the slaughter process down so much that the owner's can't make a living, so they close down. Course, us chicken farmers can't make a living either, unless we slaughter at our own farm--with a state well and disposal inspection of course. You have to keep at least one party employed.

Gotta love it. Makes me want to...To reach a position of authority one must repeatedly show their incompetence - Homesteading Questions
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02/15/05, 09:18 AM
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South West MI
Posts: 932
In Michigan when I take my turkeys and pheasants in to be butchered they can't bag them I have to. It's legal for me to sell them then. So when I go to pick them up they are in 55 gallon drums with my tag on them. I have to pick them out weigh and bag them for sale. Just more stupid rules to get around.

mikell
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02/15/05, 10:23 AM
oz in SC's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: SC and soon to be NC
Posts: 1,687
Its a good thing the gov't is there to keep everyone safe with these regulations....otherwise we might get sick or something...

What a sad state of affairs the most simple task becomes when the gov't gets involved.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02/15/05, 01:20 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Around here someplace
Posts: 519
Maine Revenue Services don't have a frigging clue. I was at a meeting where a new business incentive program was being discussed. Some genious wanted the definition of a manufacturer. The State guys answered by saying it was the creation of a tangible product that could be delivered to a customer, end user or not, didn't matter.Tangible was described a something you could see or touch.
One power plant operator piped up and asked if he qualified for the new incentives. The MRS guy made a command decision that electricity was a tangible product. The power company was eligible for the incentives.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02/15/05, 05:14 PM
Darren's Avatar  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Back in the USSR
Posts: 9,961
Fortunately in West Virginia when you buy something for ag use, all they ask is for your sales tax ID. If they forget to ask, YOU tell them the item is exempt and provide the ID.

Even the feds exempt ag equipment from customs duty. Since the tax guy from Maine has his head stuck up his ass he should be very familar with manure already.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02/15/05, 07:43 PM
reluctantpatriot's Avatar
I am good without god.
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Terra Planet, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 858
I guess if they want to tax the equipment they don't need to tax the profits

If the state taxing agency wishes to tax the equipment used on the farm or ranch rather than exempt it, then I guess the farmer or rancher doesn't need the profits taxed too. The state decided that they wanted their money on the equipment rather than the taxes later down the road that is the derivative of the use of that equipment to make profits.

Makes perfect sense to me.
__________________
I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. – Sam Harris
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02/15/05, 07:51 PM
reluctantpatriot's Avatar
I am good without god.
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Terra Planet, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 858
I guess if they want to tax the equipment they don't need to tax the profits

If the state taxing agency wishes to tax the equipment used on the farm or ranch rather than exempt it, then I guess the farmer or rancher doesn't need the profits taxed too. The state decided that they wanted their money on the equipment rather than the taxes later down the road that is the derivative of the use of that equipment to make profits.

Makes perfect sense to me.
__________________
I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. – Sam Harris
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02/15/05, 09:35 PM
mysticokra's Avatar  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Estillfork, Alabama
Posts: 329
VA just as bad

Here I was thinking that VA had to have the dumbest ag people in the country because they just made it illegal to sell the food made on the farm.

Do these guys go to conventions where Monsanto and ADM get the dirt to blackmail them for this?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02/16/05, 07:04 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,622
Course, the same bureau can't keep its act together--providing a low-income rent rebate to a woman who has been in prison for 2 years... :no: They can keep their paperwork straight on a $500 ag tax credit but a woman in prison for THEFT and UNSWORN FALSIFICATION can get away with exactly what it is she's in prison for.

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.co.../1377387.shtml
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:28 PM.
Contact Us - Homesteading Today - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top - ©Carbon Media Group Agriculture