Gibson Family Pit Bulls

EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE! Indiana has set a precedent with its "as yet

unproven" evasion of taxes case against the Garwoods of Mauckport,

Indiana, that is now being followed by other states. TN has a case

pending similar to what just occurred in Indiana...seizing dogs for

alleged "unpaid sales tax." The CA Franchise Tax Board is now sending

out letters to dog owners who have been identified as possibly "selling

dogs."

Permission to cross post everywhere!

Permission to cross post granted.

In California a friend got a letter from the "Tax Board" dated

6-10-2009. Seems that "someone" went on the AKC web site and must have

used a link to the our national breed club to find names of potential

puppy sellers.

Here's part of her message regarding the letter from the California

State Board of Equalization:

/ /Just this morning I received a letter from the Ca State Board of

Equalization saying that they had gotten information from the American

Kennel Club Web site that I might be selling animals and I needed a

seller's permit.  I just phoned the American Kennel Club to inquire as to whether or

not they provide information and if there is a list on their web site of

breeders. AKC says that their web site information is not provided to

agencies like that. There is a link on the web site to our National

club's web site and breeders list...I am sure that is where California

got my name and address.  Now I have to respond within 30 days...Oh yes...and...the letter says that if we purchase a dog from someone out of the state of

California, we are required to pay a "use" tax. -end-

After reading this and the actual letter, I asked if anyone knew of

others that had gotten letters such as my friend rec'd. I asked on a

list with people in multiple breeds in multiple states. And got a reply

with the following:

I'm guessing this is HSUS/PeTA lead after the "sting" in

Indiana where they seized a commercial kennel (took the dogs) for sales

taxes owed. It worked there, I'm guessing they are now scanning

throughout the country. The Indiana governor "thanked" HSUS for bringing

the lapse to their attention.  It worked once, likely to work again. -end-

So it seems H$U$/PeTA was behind a TAX issue in another state. I wonder

if H$US and/or PeTA are doing this in CA. Because in my opinion, now

they are going after the good guys.. Going after people that don't sell

puppies such as my friend in CA. Going after people that don't sell

puppies is something I find to be an absolute waste of time, energy and

money ..in other words typical waste of generously donated

dollars people give to the H$U$ and/or PeTA.. -As far as I can tell the

H$U$ is an AR group that operates ZERO shelters. And PeTA, also an AR

group has a single "shelter". A shelter with a kill rate well over 90%.

I also feel this is also a waste of a State employee's time. Someone had

to write the letter, print it, mail it, file the copy, open a file in my

friends name to be tracked. And some state employee is going to have to

read what ever is sent back and update the file. Then will argue even

though she sold no puppies she owes for something. I figure this

single letter costs our state quite a few actual dollars: the

employee's time (to research and write the letter, paid to a person),

paper and envelope, fuel (to deliver), the postage (paid to the USPS),

electricity (to print, fold and stamp, paid to PG&E), and that is just

to produce the letter. There is also all the processing and file

updating, mailroom, delivery to the right person... phone calls "if you

have any questions you may call me".

I have no legal background. But feel that if the Tax Board thinks you

owe them money in sales tax, that its up to them to prove you do and how

much, -BUT- that's only IF you do NOT already have a sellers permit.

Because if you have a resale license you may have signed off on allowing

them the burden of proof by applying for one. My friend does have a

kennel permit (for her personal dogs), so that may have been used as

well. I do know you give up many of your rights when you apply for a

kennel permit. -where I live, you grant unannounced inspections just for

applying for a permit.

How do you prove you are not selling puppies? I can see how you can

show proof that you have.. but how do you prove somethibg that does not

exist?

So be warned.. Cities and States are hard up for money. They are going

after every penny they can get. And they are using anything they can,

to do so. I, myself paid dearly on a technicality, several months ago.

I had to pay fines that were basically DOUBLE the lic fee to my city.

I had a small retail space I rented in another city where I sold my

books and crafts. Turned out I needed a business license in my city

simply because I had a sellers permit with the State of CA. It should

be noted, I owed zero sales tax because I have faithfully paid my sales

taxes each and every year.

So, be warned BIG BROTHER is out there.

"Senate Bill 241 would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies"

Nevada Bill to Terribly Impact Responsible Dog Breeders

[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]

 
A bill has been introduced in the Nevada Senate to regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number. Senate Bill 241 would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies. It would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections. It is very important for all responsible dog breeders and owners in Nevada to contact the Nevada Senate and express your opposition to this infringement on your rights!

As written, SB 241 would:

Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.

Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times."

The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.

Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.

Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.

Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.

Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.

The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. We believe, however, that onerous regulations do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. The AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.

How You Can Help:

Contact the bill sponsors and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 241.

Their contact information is as follows:

Senator Shirley Breeden
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2131
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1457
E-mail: sbreeden@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Maggie Carlton
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2125
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1431
E-mail: mcarlton@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Valerie Wiener
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2132
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1422
E-mail: vwiener@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Randolph Townsend
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2107
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1450
E-mail: rtownsend@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Steven Horsford
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 1222
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1429
E-mail: shorsford@sen.state.nv.us

Senator John Lee
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2131
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1457
E-mail: jlee@sen.state.nv.us

Senator David Parks
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2121
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-6504
E-mail: dparks@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Joyce Woodhouse
c/o Nevada Senate
401 S. Carson St., Room 2127
Carson City, NV 89703
Phone: (775) 684-1481
E-mail: jwoodhouse@sen.state.nv.us

Contact your State Senator and express your opposition to the bill. Click here to find your Senator and obtain contact information.

Do you have a dog that is tethered, cabled, or chained?  If so pay attention...  HSUS has a new version of a NO TETHERING bill.  This was put on the floor today. 

Restraining of Dogs HB 626

www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H626v0.html

*SESSION 2009*

*H D* *HOUSE DRH30138-LL-68A (2/5)* * * * * * *

Short Title: Restraining of Dogs.

(Public) Sponsors: Representative Yongue.

Referred to: A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

to amend the criminal law concerning restraining of dogs.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

*SECTION 1.* G.S. 14‑362.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 14‑362.3.

Restraining dogs in a cruel manner.

_(a)_ A person who maliciously _knowingly_ restrains a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the size _or weight_ necessary to restrain the dog safely _or other type of tethering device in violation of this section_ is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this section, "maliciously" means the person imposed the restraint intentionally and with malice or bad motive.

 _(b)_ _No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause such restraining of a dog, to a tree, fence, post, dog house, or other stationary object for more than nine hours in a 24‑hour period. During periods of tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection, any tethering device used shall be at least 15 feet in length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other injury to the dog and entanglement with objects other than the stationary objects to which the device is attached.

_ _(c)_ _No person shall attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to, or cause such attachment to, a choke‑type or pronged collar on a dog.

_ _(d)_ _No person shall attach a chain or wire or other tethering device to a dog in such manner that does not allow the dog access to water and adequate shelter.

_ _(e)_ _Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, a person may, subject to the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section:

_ _(1)_ _Tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged in:_ _a._ _Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock, or_ _b._ _Use of the dog in the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog, or_ _c._ _Use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.

_ _(2)_ _After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the dog, tether and restrain the dog during such time as the person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity of the owner of the dog.

_ _(3)_ _Walk a dog with a handheld leash._ _(f)_ _Restraining a dog in a manner prohibited by this section constitutes cruelty as defined in G.S. 19A‑1(2)._ _(g)_ _A county, city, or town may by ordinance reduce the time of permissible tethering provided in subsection (b) of this section, including a prohibition on tethering._"

*SECTION 2.* This act becomes effective December 1, 2009, and applies to acts committed on or after that date.