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
