O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-5-541 (2019)

Property tax return on airline flight equipment; penalties

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each airline company operating in this state shall make an annual property tax return of its flight equipment to the commissioner on or before March 1 in each year for the preceding calendar year. Each type and model of flight equipment shall be separately returned, valued, and apportioned as provided in this article. (b) If an airline company fails to make the return required by subsection (a) of this Code section by the date specified in that subsection, or as extended by the commissioner pursuant to Code Section 48-2-36, the airline company shall pay a penalty of 10 percent of the amount of the taxes for which it may be liable by reason of the return. The penalty imposed by this subsection shall be payable to the state, any county, or any municipality to which the taxes upon which the penalty is based are payable.

History

Ga. L. 1972, p. 1129, § 2; Code 1933,

§ 91A-2302, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2; Ga. L. 1987, p. 977, § 3.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Situs of aircraft, rolling stock, and

vessels for purposes of property taxation, 3 A.L.R.4th 837.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: White Cloud Charter, Inc. v. DeKalb Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 520 S.E.2d 708 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

White Cloud Charter, Inc. v. DeKalb Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 520 S.E.2d 708 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 48-5-541 (a). Here, White Cloud admitted that this aircraft had not been used for commercial purposes in 1996.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.