|
Rather thought provoking Paul...I’m not a qualified person to answer your qualified question, so what I’m about to say is unqualified. It would certainly be good to get an official response from the CWAS committee on this amongst other items raised in this post. If you take the reseller path, they are running a business importing telescope goods so plainly semi-pro would fit given the taxable income condition, though many are still amateurs! However there is some emphasis placed on individuals – maybe the condition changes if you are part of a greater business or sole proprietor. I guess the semi pro advantage stems from a reseller buying high end gear and claiming it is used for astronomical testing of products which are part of the business operations, thus they can depreciate the gear over time. As I understand it, if you obtain a taxable income from teaching astronomy or developing astronomy software, the semi-pro condition would also apply. If the time I've purchased on rental scopes was a cost I could claim, I’d be a happy chap. Selling a couple of prints a year is hardly a taxable income to offset the costs, thus the cost of telescope time comes out of my own pocket 100%...So who’s disadvantaged?
Clearly, these rules need to change so they reflect the different scenarios accurately. I trust that CWAS organisers will provide clarity around the semi-pro category and will be visionary in that they will embrace remote imaging instead of making it outcast. It’s only going to increase. If we take the S&T Beautiful Universe competition in which David Malin was also a judge, there was no “classy remote imaging”, semi professional category or even amateur! Everyone was in together based on target categories, galaxies, nebulae, solar system. Hmmm, food for thought.
|