Tourism officials suspend $18 million incentive for Noah’s Ark site over property transfer

Lexington Herald Leader ^ | July 21, 2017 | Linda Blackford

[mountn man]

Soooooo....Let me see if I understand this correctly.

The Noahs Ark park had entered into an incentive agreement for the park, that a portion of sales TAX would be returned to the park as an incentive for development.

Now that the park is up and running, another TAX is being levied, ONLY AGAINST the park, for security and emergency services, above and beyond what they pay as an operating business.

In other words, we’ll give you a tax refund for an incentive to build...
But add another tax, to offset the refund.

[schaef21]

I am the President of a local Creation group that has five speakers presenting biblical truth to people of all ages....both believers and unbelievers.

Answers in Genesis has provided invaluable materials in our pursuit of evangelizing the lost and equipping the saved.

Two former Board Members of our group work at AIG, one of whom taught anatomy and histology at a prominent ultra liberal university for 35 years before retiring and moving to Kentucky to serve the ministry.

After enduring 35 years of slings and arrows as the only creationist in the Med school there I’m pretty sure he would have the ability to spot a charlatan.

You throw out accusations, I suggest you back them up. Show me Ham’s million dollar home and his string of fancy cars.

I am not up to speed on this tax deal...I haven’t read AIG’s position on it. Somehow though, I get the feeling that if Donald Trump had done this you’d call him a genius.

[momincombatboots]

Great Post. Ken Hamm and co did a great job with Is Genesis History. And I love taking back the rainbow.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The act you cited must be confined to a narrow definition that is purposeful to prevent fraud.

It's not limited to actual fraud, but is rather designed to protect creditors. The Act says, in essence, that if you owe money to A, and you sell your property to B for less than fair market value, and you do not have enough left to pay A, A can collect his debt from B (whether or not B had any fraudulent intent or even knew that you owed money to A).

In this case, the Ark attraction claimed they were a for-profit venture, in order to gain tax incentives which Kentucky provides only to for-profit companies. When the local town tried to impose a tax on their ticket sales, they sold the whole business to a non-profit (which wouldn't owe any taxes) for $10. If Kentucky challenges that sale as a fraudulent conveyance, I think they have a good case.