Montana registration crack-down | Page 24 | FerrariChat

Montana registration crack-down

Discussion in 'Ferrari Discussion (not model specific)' started by Terence Courtnage, Oct 25, 2018.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    Correct. BUT, A MT corporation is NOT a resident of CA. And, it enjoys all the protections of being a legal entity in MT. Regardless of there its' assets are located.

    Not sure I agree, but, alternatively, MT corporation can sue CA in CA. And, how's that going to go? I raise conflict of interest, again.

    I see this is an issue of competing states' rights. States get sued all the time. By each other, usually. I concur, generally, with your comment, but I think this is one state ignoring another's states laws and usurping that second state's decision to NOT tax. And, full faith and credit is just being brushed aside, right? I mean, a MT corporation as a legal entity there is due all those benefits. It is NOT a CA resident or CA anything. On what basis does CA say it can tax a MT corporation? Oh, right...because CA wants the taxes? What it actually does is make a determination that the MT corporation is a tax avoidance scheme and looks through to the shareholder(s), right? So, again, I'm not sure this has been resolved by a higher legal authority, but it should be.

    Correct. BUT, vehicles are titled property. Where they're garaged is irrelevant to the state issuing the title, right? So, CA is taxing a MT-titled property on the basis that it's garaged and operated in CA. But, it's still a MT-owned and titled property. I dunno...maybe I'm not making my points clearly?

    CW
     
  2. Clyde Romero

    Clyde Romero Formula Junior

    Sep 6, 2019
    691
    Atlanta Georgia
    Full Name:
    Clarence Romero

    here is the bottom line
    unless you live in that state where the car is registered it is going to look like you are skirting the law
    you show a drivers license from out of state from the car your driving
    as Lucy would say "got some explaining to do"
    and the courts will not look favorable on you
    yea you can appeal etc.
    but in the end you will have paid more than it was worth
    municipalities are looking at everything now a days to recoup lost revenue
    hide and watch
    the game has begun in earnest now
    before no one cared
    but in my old line of work we used to say
    its not over until you back on the ground
     
    308 milano and Texas Forever like this.
  3. Nospinzone

    Nospinzone F1 Veteran

    Jul 1, 2013
    7,348
    Weston, MA
    Full Name:
    Paul
    I answered it for you. At least as it relates to Massachusetts laws.
     
    RonH likes this.
  4. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    75,396
    Texas!
    Keep in mind, CA is dealing with California residents who have a car parked in their garage with Montana plates. Clearly, CA has the Constitutional authority to tax and regulate CA residents. I'm thinking any Constitutional challenge to CA's authority faces an uphill climb.

    Listen, I agree. This sucks. In Texas, you pay 6% when you buy a car. The annual registration is around $70 or so. I love California, but stuff like this is why I don't live there. I rent by the day.
     
    davemqv and RonH like this.
  5. RonH

    RonH Formula 3

    May 29, 2016
    1,061
    Newport Coast, California
    Full Name:
    Ron H
    CW, again, there are no constitutional issues here. You are creating a lot of “what ifs” chasing rabbits down holes that dont exist.

    As I said, SCOTUS has said that states can tax their residents on out of state sales and make out of state vendors collect and remit sales and use taxes to the resident’s home state. That is the Wayfair case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc.

    As I also said, SCOTUS has decided that one state cannot be sued in another state’s court. That is the Hyatt case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_Tax_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt_(2019.

    Also, California could care less about the Montana LLC. They have possession of the owner’s body (and car). It will be the owner that California charges taxes, fines and penalties and puts in jail for tax evasion, not his car or the LLC. So the LLC can breathe easy and you need not be concerned about the LLC being treated unfairly.
     
    anunakki and Nospinzone like this.
  6. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    You mean CA's courts will not look favorably on a CA resident driving a MT-registered car. But, not MT's courts, and that is where the corporation is domiciled and the asset is titled.

    CW
     
  7. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    I'll have to go back and re-read it. I must have missed it. I meant the hypothetical about one's driver's license.

    CW
     
  8. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    Yes, but legally registered and titled to a corporation in good standing in MT. This matters.

    Yes, but the question is: does CA have the authority to tax a MT-based corporation on its' MT-titled personal property? It may be located in CA, but the only basis on which CA can even make a claim is because the MT-titled asset may be located in CA for more than an arbitrarily-decided 20 days, correct? That and the shareholder/driver is a CA resident. But, that's one of the main purposes of a corporation: it separates ownership and liability (especially in this instance) from the CA resident. CA is saying it's a scheme set up to avoid taxation. MT is saying it's a legitimate corporation. Thus, why I view this as a legal impasse.

    Exactly. Hence my concern about conflict of interest and pro-CA bias in CA courts. CA isn't interested in declaring their laws to be unconstitutional/invalid/unenforceable. It's against their economic interest, and I just don't think you'll get a fair interpretation.

    I'm not naive. I know this is an uphill battle with many challenges, but we do have higher laws and interests than those of CA. Laws that, IMO, are in conflict and in need of being reconciled somehow.

    CW
     
    BT, Texas Forever and of2worlds like this.
  9. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    I disagree. I think the legal formalities need to be acknowledged and honored. If it's good enough for MT, it ought to be good enough for CA. I view CA's actions as nothing more than a self-serving money grab. That said, we can also agree to disagree.

    A MT corporation is not a CA resident.

    Which may be why this case needs to be brought in Federal court. But, as I've said, many things surprise me.

    I agree, BUT that's the point exactly. CA views this as a scheme to avoid taxation and looks through to the CA resident, while MT views the corporation entirely legitimately. Which is it? Can it be both? I don't know that it can. My feeling is that if one state says it's legitimate, another cannot just declare it to be illegitimate. That will likely produce odd results and set up a situation where there can be disparate treatments in each of the 50 states. Such a situation would be very much appropriate for resolution by SCOTUS.

    CW
     
    BT likes this.
  10. anunakki

    anunakki Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 8, 2005
    72,512
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Full Name:
    Jerry
    This all sounds like the sovereign citizen thing. They may actually be right but they will never win in court. Its a fun academic debate but unless one is willing to risk the consequences of losing, it should stay academic.
     
    RonH and BT like this.
  11. Nospinzone

    Nospinzone F1 Veteran

    Jul 1, 2013
    7,348
    Weston, MA
    Full Name:
    Paul
    Well put a post number, that was the only hypothetical I saw.
     
  12. Nospinzone

    Nospinzone F1 Veteran

    Jul 1, 2013
    7,348
    Weston, MA
    Full Name:
    Paul
    A Federal court judge cannot overturn a ruling by the US Supreme Court. It works the other way around though.
     
  13. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    Will do.

    CW
     
  14. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    I agree, but I think the cited SCOTUS rulings are distinguishable from what we're discussing. I think it may set the foundations of a ruling in favor of CA's tax, but that's just me speculating. Again, trying to predict outcomes in the law is a tricky business. And, even with precedent, good counsel can always present novel arguments that make the Justices think differently about an issue. It sometimes just depends on the timing of it!

    CW
     
  15. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    Ultimately, you may be right that it remains academic. I've been in litigation with government. They're disingenuous and dirty, and they DO pass laws that are unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable. They don't, however, rein themselves in voluntarily.

    But, why let intellectual honesty get in the way of collecting more tax revenues? So, unless there's a big enough reason to challenge it (and take on the risk of losing), why put yourself in the crosshairs? That said, I do think you might see someone go to the mat one day, despite all the downsides. I'd like to see what happens.

    CW
     
    BT and anunakki like this.
  16. randkin

    randkin Formula 3
    BANNED

    Aug 2, 2015
    1,497
    Somis, CA
    Full Name:
    Randy
    #591 randkin, Jun 5, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
    Medicare health insurance premiums are based on income. The feds know exactly what you make from the tax returns you file every year. Private healthcare insurance is not generally based on income but the health insurance plans cannot discriminate between income groups of employees as there becomes a tax deductibility issue for the plan.
     
    davemqv likes this.
  17. davemqv

    davemqv F1 Rookie

    Aug 28, 2014
    3,097
    USA
    Full Name:
    Dave
    I know two people in LA who had cars on Montana plates and got pulled over for it. One is a lawyer. Both just decided to pay the fines/taxes and re-register their cars in CA.

    I've never heard of anyone fighting it. I don't know how that would go though..."Well your honour, I do in fact live and work in here in CA. Truth be told I have never actually even been to Montana. But yes, all my very expensive cars are registered to my business there, which exists in name only. Because I live and work here. So that's it right? Free to go?"

    Good luck with that one.
     
    Texas Forever likes this.
  18. davemqv

    davemqv F1 Rookie

    Aug 28, 2014
    3,097
    USA
    Full Name:
    Dave
    That explains it. I was wondering about that. Nowhere in any quoting or selecting of private healthcare did I ever have to disclose income. Just pick a plan and pay for it. But I imagine Medicare is different.
     
  19. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    75,396
    Texas!
    Nope. When I researched this about 9 years ago, everybody rolled. Particularly, when facing a CRIMINAL misdemeanor.

    Edit. I just remembered. There was a case in Louisiana where somebody got a case dismissed, but it wasn’t on all fours.

    Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
     
  20. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    IIRC, I think I've linked to the LA case earlier in this thread.

    CW
     
  21. Gh21631

    Gh21631 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 24, 2011
    8,325
    East
    Looting, no problem. killing cops no problem. destroying property, no problem,. drugs, no problem. Montana plates, you are screwed.
     
  22. Gh21631

    Gh21631 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 24, 2011
    8,325
    East
    For reference, one off the businesses I owned had about 70 trucks. We registered them all in MD although our HQ was in VA. Slightly higher sales tax in MD but no recurring property tax and MD gave credit for tax paid on trade in's. Never a single issue in 15 years. These registrations could have easily been in any other state and no one would care, perhaps because these were $25K work vehicles. As I stated in an earlier post if the states were more reasonable they would likely be ahead but they have no business sense.
     
    LightGuy likes this.
  23. RonH

    RonH Formula 3

    May 29, 2016
    1,061
    Newport Coast, California
    Full Name:
    Ron H
    Nice! I think that is exactly how the testimony would go. By the way, the lawyer also had his law ticket to worry about. Cheating on your taxes can result in disbarment or suspension. Not surprising he slinked away when they caught him and paid up. People really have to think through all of the implications before cheating on their taxes.
     
    davemqv and Texas Forever like this.
  24. TUTTSF

    TUTTSF Karting

    Sep 21, 2018
    162
    So. Cal
    Drive my MT reg motor home all over the US no problem Jeep w/MT plates 15 years no problem Jag 11 years MT no problem Dodge truck MT plates 16 years no problem Drive my 458 w/ MT plates and all the sudden It's a big problem. Motor home was over 400k new Jag over 100k new no problem drive a fancy sports car with MT plates and you are the devil scum of all time tax dodger "cheater" not paying your fair share. I have several business's in the state of CA and between the fed and state they take half of my "earnings". I was brought up I guess a lot differently than the sheep I see today, the battle is to keep my earnings and the enemy is the takers and they are truly my enemy. Transferred the ownership on a 25 million dollar family business paid no, zero, nada taxes on it. Yes I got audited by the IRS and they walked with ZERO $. I was out CPA/Lawyer bill but it was money well spent. My MT LLC is a "holding" corp. that is the purpose for it. My Wyoming LLC is for my real estate "holdings" that is the sole purpose and I would not mix assets that can be pierced by legal challenge. What the hell do I know maybe your right maybe I should just bend over and take with a smile like most of the smart people in Commyfornia. **** I better start writing that check for over 100k that I saved by legally following the laws of another state.
     
    Xtreme5053, LightGuy, ross and 4 others like this.
  25. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    75,396
    Texas!
    Cool. Like I said, I get it. I firmly believe it is your own damn money. But, but, you gotta know when to fight and when to fold.
     

Share This Page