On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dynamite Bob wrote: <quoting someone who is not participating in this discussion>

"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

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 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net