Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
> More importantly: you can't get sued if your space debris trashes someone > else's mission. A piece of law that will have to be re-assessed if there ever are any space colonists, or serious productive industry in LEO. You really wouldn't want to live somewhere where anyone who "accidentally" evacuates all the air from your house has no legal liability. Ken
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:05:44 Phillip H. Zakas wrote: > > >you know one of the things i'd like to do is go into the waste removal >business in orbit. lots of junk up there...would like to launch a satellite >with a long finger attached to it and poke stuff out of orbit. the "nudge". >who'd pay? it would be quite an unfornate event if a satellite were >mistaken as a piece of debris...or if debris suddenly appeared in a launch >window ;) > >phillip > There is lots of junk up there. Schemes to de-orbit satellites at the end of their useful life have been put forward but they always fail on the liability issue. Apparently if a satellite falls out of orbit it is an "act of god" and the owner/insurer is not responsible for damages, but if the satellite is deliberately de-orbitted the owner/insurer is on the hook. No one, partiucularly the insurance companies wants to try it. This despite a high degree of confidence in being able to bring a satellite down in a hopefully empty patch of ocean. Insurance companies are very risk averse. Jim Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
Peter Trei wrote: > Expatriate US citizens have to pay > income tax on foreign earned income > to the US...If you don't pay up, > they might not be able to extradite > you if you're now a foreigner, but > they'll go after your assets in the > US, or arrest you if you set foot > on US soil. > > (13 years as an expatriate leads to > some specialized knowledge :-) Maybe, but you got part of that wrong. (a) For expatiate US persons, the first $78,000 (or there about; they keep upping the amount) of income is exempt. (b) If you file, but do not pay, they can grab US assets, but they cannot extradite you nor arrest you if you come back, because no crime has been committed. Failure to file is a crime; failure to pay is a civil matter. S a n d y
Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
Kalifornica charges property taxes on live-aboard boats which haven't been in their waters or registered in their state for years -- or tries to, on the basis that the owner *used* to live there, even if his current residence if elsewhere. Or so people on the boating lists complain. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
you know one of the things i'd like to do is go into the waste removal business in orbit. lots of junk up there...would like to launch a satellite with a long finger attached to it and poke stuff out of orbit. the "nudge". who'd pay? it would be quite an unfornate event if a satellite were mistaken as a piece of debris...or if debris suddenly appeared in a launch window ;) phillip > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trei, Peter > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:24 PM > To: 'Ray Dillinger' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > -- > > From: Trei, Peter > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:05 PM > > To: 'Ray Dillinger' > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:36 PM > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: > > > > > > >"The property in question here is geostationary," > > > >said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney > > > >representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary > > > >satellites sit above the equator in a fixed > > > >position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So > > > >the satellites we're talking about here are not > > > >movable property." > > > > > Actually, there's a curious legal precedent which might > > help the satellite holders. One of the NASA probes (perhaps > > the atmospheric probe to Jupiter? Did we have a Venus probe?) > > had an instrument window made of diamond. The fairly large > > diamond used drew considerable import duty when it was > > brought into the US, but that duty was returned after the > > launch, since the diamond had been 're-exported'. This > > seems to my IANAL logic to set a precedent that an > > asset in space is not in the US. > > > ...you can find anything on the net if you choose to look > > This was the Pionner Venus Orbiter, built by Hughes and > launched in 1978. > > > http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/diamond.txt > - > FROM: "Dr. Mark W. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > SUBJECT: Re: Who makes big diamond windows? > DATE: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:11:44 -0600 > ORGANIZATION: MOXTEK, Inc. > NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics > > Nelson Wallace wrote: > > > "Big" meaning around 1 inch diameter, say 0.1" thick. > > Regards, Nelson Wallace > > Wow, you TRW-government-contracting-no-holds-barred- > success-at-any-cost-if-you-have-to-ask-you-can't-afford-it guys > have all the > fun. > > Hughes Aircraft bought the diamond window on the Venus probe > nephelometer from DeBeers. I remember that it was suggested to > the principle investigator that he could save a lot of money if he > used two smaller windows, but he was worried that they might not > be the same temperature, so he splurged. I also remember that when > the probe landed on Venus the US Customs people refunded the > customs duty, since the diamond had been re-exported. > > > >
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
> -- > From: Trei, Peter > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:05 PM > To: 'Ray Dillinger' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > -- > > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:36 PM > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: > > > > >"The property in question here is geostationary," > > >said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney > > >representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary > > >satellites sit above the equator in a fixed > > >position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So > > >the satellites we're talking about here are not > > >movable property." > > > Actually, there's a curious legal precedent which might > help the satellite holders. One of the NASA probes (perhaps > the atmospheric probe to Jupiter? Did we have a Venus probe?) > had an instrument window made of diamond. The fairly large > diamond used drew considerable import duty when it was > brought into the US, but that duty was returned after the > launch, since the diamond had been 're-exported'. This > seems to my IANAL logic to set a precedent that an > asset in space is not in the US. > ...you can find anything on the net if you choose to look This was the Pionner Venus Orbiter, built by Hughes and launched in 1978. http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/diamond.txt - FROM: "Dr. Mark W. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SUBJECT: Re: Who makes big diamond windows? DATE: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:11:44 -0600 ORGANIZATION: MOXTEK, Inc. NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics Nelson Wallace wrote: > "Big" meaning around 1 inch diameter, say 0.1" thick. > Regards, Nelson Wallace Wow, you TRW-government-contracting-no-holds-barred- success-at-any-cost-if-you-have-to-ask-you-can't-afford-it guys have all the fun. Hughes Aircraft bought the diamond window on the Venus probe nephelometer from DeBeers. I remember that it was suggested to the principle investigator that he could save a lot of money if he used two smaller windows, but he was worried that they might not be the same temperature, so he splurged. I also remember that when the probe landed on Venus the US Customs people refunded the customs duty, since the diamond had been re-exported.
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
> -- > From: Trei, Peter > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:05 PM > To: 'Ray Dillinger' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > -- > > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:36 PM > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: > > > > >"The property in question here is geostationary," > > >said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney > > >representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary > > >satellites sit above the equator in a fixed > > >position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So > > >the satellites we're talking about here are not > > >movable property." > > > Actually, there's a curious legal precedent which might > help the satellite holders. One of the NASA probes (perhaps > the atmospheric probe to Jupiter? Did we have a Venus probe?) > had an instrument window made of diamond. The fairly large > diamond used drew considerable import duty when it was > brought into the US, but that duty was returned after the > launch, since the diamond had been 're-exported'. This > seems to my IANAL logic to set a precedent that an > asset in space is not in the US. > ...you can find anything on the net if you choose to look This was the Pionner Venus Orbiter, built by Hughes and launched in 1978. http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/diamond.txt - FROM: "Dr. Mark W. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SUBJECT: Re: Who makes big diamond windows? DATE: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:11:44 -0600 ORGANIZATION: MOXTEK, Inc. NEWSGROUPS: sci.optics Nelson Wallace wrote: > "Big" meaning around 1 inch diameter, say 0.1" thick. > Regards, Nelson Wallace Wow, you TRW-government-contracting-no-holds-barred- success-at-any-cost-if-you-have-to-ask-you-can't-afford-it guys have all the fun. Hughes Aircraft bought the diamond window on the Venus probe nephelometer from DeBeers. I remember that it was suggested to the principle investigator that he could save a lot of money if he used two smaller windows, but he was worried that they might not be the same temperature, so he splurged. I also remember that when the probe landed on Venus the US Customs people refunded the customs duty, since the diamond had been re-exported.
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
> -- > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:36 PM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: > > >"The property in question here is geostationary," > >said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney > >representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary > >satellites sit above the equator in a fixed > >position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So > >the satellites we're talking about here are not > >movable property." > Actually, there's a curious legal precedent which might help the satellite holders. One of the NASA probes (perhaps the atmospheric probe to Jupiter? Did we have a Venus probe?) had an instrument window made of diamond. The fairly large diamond used drew considerable import duty when it was brought into the US, but that duty was returned after the launch, since the diamond had been 're-exported'. This seems to my IANAL logic to set a precedent that an asset in space is not in the US. > Since the equator does not pass through California, it > follows that any property hanging above a point on the > equator is NOT within the borders of California -- no > matter how far up you extend them. So I doubt the > claim of jurisdiction. Hmmm. Maybe their theory is that > because it's not within another nation's border, property > owned by US citizens is subject to American Taxes. That > would be bad. > > Or maybe they're attempting to establish a doctrine that > Americans can be charged property tax on property they > hold outside the borders of the US regardless of whether > it's in the borders of another country. That would be > worse. At the very least it would provide substantial > disincentive to retaining American citizenship. [...] > Bear > Actually, the USG doesn't give a damn whether it's in the US, in another country , or neither. If they want to, they'll tax it. Expatriate US citizens have to pay income tax on foreign earned income to the US (I think only the US, Egypt, and the Phillipines do this). Even if you give up your US citizenship, the IRS expects to tax you for a further 10 years if your net worth is over $350k when you vacate your US citizenship. If you don't pay up, they might not be able to extradite you if you're now a foreigner, but they'll go after your assets in the US, or arrest you if you set foot on US soil. (13 years as an expatriate leads to some specialized knowledge :-) Peter Trei
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
> -- > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:36 PM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites) > > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: > > >"The property in question here is geostationary," > >said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney > >representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary > >satellites sit above the equator in a fixed > >position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So > >the satellites we're talking about here are not > >movable property." > Actually, there's a curious legal precedent which might help the satellite holders. One of the NASA probes (perhaps the atmospheric probe to Jupiter? Did we have a Venus probe?) had an instrument window made of diamond. The fairly large diamond used drew considerable import duty when it was brought into the US, but that duty was returned after the launch, since the diamond had been 're-exported'. This seems to my IANAL logic to set a precedent that an asset in space is not in the US. > Since the equator does not pass through California, it > follows that any property hanging above a point on the > equator is NOT within the borders of California -- no > matter how far up you extend them. So I doubt the > claim of jurisdiction. Hmmm. Maybe their theory is that > because it's not within another nation's border, property > owned by US citizens is subject to American Taxes. That > would be bad. > > Or maybe they're attempting to establish a doctrine that > Americans can be charged property tax on property they > hold outside the borders of the US regardless of whether > it's in the borders of another country. That would be > worse. At the very least it would provide substantial > disincentive to retaining American citizenship. [...] > Bear > Actually, the USG doesn't give a damn whether it's in the US, in another country , or neither. If they want to, they'll tax it. Expatriate US citizens have to pay income tax on foreign earned income to the US (I think only the US, Egypt, and the Phillipines do this). Even if you give up your US citizenship, the IRS expects to tax you for a further 10 years if your net worth is over $350k when you vacate your US citizenship. If you don't pay up, they might not be able to extradite you if you're now a foreigner, but they'll go after your assets in the US, or arrest you if you set foot on US soil. (13 years as an expatriate leads to some specialized knowledge :-) Peter Trei
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
Ray Dillinger wrote: > Now, if Sri Lanka wanted to charge > property taxes for some prime > orbital real estate, it might be > able to make a better case -- it > actually *has* prime orbital real > estate. Only in Arthur C. Clarks science fiction. The equator does not cross Sri Lanka. Now Ecuador (duh)... S a n d y
RE: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
"Dynamite Bob" wrote: > Get a load of this lawyer's physics: > > "Geostationary satellites sit above > the equator in a fixed position; > they do not rotate around the Earth. Maybe he was making a very sophisticated argument about "frame of reference" (or maybe not). :-D S a n d y So the traffic cop pulls Albert Einstein over for speeding. "Do you know how fast you were going back there, buddy?" the cop asks. Albert looks quizzical and responds, "In what reference frame, officer?"
Re: lawyer physics (was taxing satellites)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: >"The property in question here is geostationary," >said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney >representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary >satellites sit above the equator in a fixed >position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So >the satellites we're talking about here are not >movable property." Since the equator does not pass through California, it follows that any property hanging above a point on the equator is NOT within the borders of California -- no matter how far up you extend them. So I doubt the claim of jurisdiction. Hmmm. Maybe their theory is that because it's not within another nation's border, property owned by US citizens is subject to American Taxes. That would be bad. Or maybe they're attempting to establish a doctrine that Americans can be charged property tax on property they hold outside the borders of the US regardless of whether it's in the borders of another country. That would be worse. At the very least it would provide substantial disincentive to retaining American citizenship. Now, if Sri Lanka wanted to charge property taxes for some prime orbital real estate, it might be able to make a better case -- it actually *has* prime orbital real estate. Bear
