Connecticut to screw car enthusiasts

Seems like they may be a little optimistic on the Property tax revenues. If my vehicle is worth less than $500, this bill would prompt me to dump the EA Plates. And if its worth less than $2500 I do the same thing. Most of the cars that I see with EA plates (at least around here) are $%!# boxes, that aren't worth anywhere near $2500. What does this do to their $2.5M projection?

 

I see two errors in the State's calculation. 1. It assumes all vechicles with antique plates will continue to be registered in CT. 2. The towns will not see an increase in tax revenue. The towns pass their budget's then divide that budget into the value of all assessed property, to determine the mill rate. This change will result in an immaterial mill rate reduction.

 

Are you a sponsor of that bill? Seems like it. Beside the tone used to carry your idea is not welcome. As owners of antiques we have to be united as to not making a bidding run of who can be the last to afford nice things.

 

Lane,

great work. I was not aware of this. Unbeleivable. I am rather polically moderate but I beleive that all the bill sponsor should be voted out and their opponnent be elected next time regardless of party affiliation.

I send an email already. If there is anything we could do collectively I am game. I do hope this ridiculous bill will be turned down.
I also hope ALL antique owners will stick toghether because in 5 years they may as well try a push from 30 to 40 years. Politicien cant be trusted.

 

I live in district 81 and unfortunatly I wont be able to vote any of these clowns out. I hope some of you will.

 

Thanks for posting Lane. CCM would seem to carry more weight than 4C's, IMO, but bot help.

The one thing I think you are over thinking is how these cars would be appraised. I pointed out before that although my car is 27 years old, I went a number of years without registering the car as antique and obtaining EA plates. (I didn't want Early American plates on an Italian car. Go figure. ) The reason was simple, the current (and proposed) law does not require EA plates for a car to be assessed at the antique rate. Initially I was under the impression that all I had to do was go to the tax assessor and show the proper documentation and the assessor would make the adjustment. WRONG. That may work in some towns but not in Marlborough. My car was assessed at 70% of average retail according to NADA, just as any other car. The assessor had no problem determining the value. (NADA goes back to 1947 for Ferrais, for example). To have the tax break applied I had to: 1) pay the full tax on time, 2) appear before the assessment board of appeals and 3) wait several months for a refund. I presumed that the appeal would carry over automatically to future years. WRONG again. The next year my car was assessed at 70% of NADA just as the previous year so I had to again make an appeal. Then, not wanting to go through the pay up front, appeal and wait a 3rd time I changed registration to EA.

According to our assessor, cars in general are not assessed at true market value because that is very condition dependent. Rather if you own an 19xx "anything" (xx currently >92, to be 82) it is assessed at 70% of NADA average, at least in Marlborough and all the other towns I have asked about. So if you own a beater '94 BMW 3 series you suffer but if you own a perfectly restored example, you make out (compared to NADA average).


The point being that I don't see any problem with the assessors evaluating the cars. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the proposed law states that the state will provide a list of values for cars less than 30 years old. It is only if a car is not on the list that the assessor must make the assessment. And how that assessment is made is determined by the town, not the assessor. So if the towns say use NADA average value (which it appears most of the towns around me do) that is how it will be done.


You know, having 27 years experience with owning this car I wish for the simpler time of the past when we had a tax assessor that was a local resident and respected our personal needs and wasn't centered on extracting maximum tax es. Back in the '80's I could walk into the assessors office, explain that my car was very limited use and that I had two cars which I paid full taxes on and the assessor would not hesitate to make an adjustment for me. That kind of reasoning doesn't fly today. Seems it's just more depersonalization of out local government. More "choices" are forced by the state and federal gov. It's got to change.

 

I get it precisely. And I think other understand as well. That was exactly the point I was making when I said if it's a beater (truck 1) you get burned, if its perfect you make out. Actually, the guy who owns truck 1 probably doesn't get burned all that bad because a 91 Chevy truck ain't worth much to start. So it's more the guy with truck 2 that makes out with NADA eval. Now, on the other hand, should any 21 year old Chevy truck really be consider rare, antique, special interest? Should an '89 BMW 3 series? Does condition matter with regard to qualifying for EA plates? I have seen my share of vehicles looking like truck #1 driving around with EA plates. I think that is a miss application of the law. But show up an the DMV with a 20+ year old title and they just give you EA plates. No one looks at the car. What about all the guy who modify there cars from stock? The qualifier is "being preserved because of historic interest and which is NOT altered or modified from the original manufacturer's specifications."

It's a different story with true antiques or rare, special interest cars have NADA values in the 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars.

 

What are you talking about? To pay $1k in taxes a year here in Marlborough the vehicle would have to be assessed at $35,700 or have an average retail value of $51,000. The 91 Chevy trucks I looked at on NADA had an average retail value of between $6k and $7k, or a high assessment of $4.9k with a (Marlborough) tax of $140. That is in the ballpark of what the owners of either of those trucks would pay in my town, fixed up or not, under the new law, or currently if not registered as EA. I don't know where you are coming up with your numbers. In my town the assessor would not care it you bought a vehicle new and vacuum sealed it for 50 years. If it is not registered as EA it gets assessed at 70% of NADA average retail if it's not on the state supplied list.

Doesn't have anything to do with my nose. That is the way the tax law is applied in Marlborough.

Here is the law:

Sec. 12-71d. Schedule of motor vehicle values. On or before the first day of October each year, the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall recommend a schedule of motor vehicle values which shall be used by assessors in each municipality in determining the assessed value of motor vehicles for purposes of property taxation. For every vehicle not listed in the schedule the determination of the assessed value of any motor vehicle for purposes of the property tax assessment list in any municipality shall continue to be the responsibility of the assessor in such municipality, provided the legislative body of the municipality may, by resolution, approve any change in the assessor's method of valuing motor vehicles. Any appeal from the findings of assessors concerning motor vehicle values shall be made in accordance with provisions related to such appeals under this chapter. Such schedule of values shall include, to the extent that information for such purpose is available, the value for assessment purposes of any motor vehicle currently in use. The value for each motor vehicle as listed shall represent one hundred per cent of the average retail price applicable to such motor vehicle in this state as of the first day of October in such year as determined by said secretary in cooperation with the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers.

Now, what I am telling you is that, in the case where a vehicle is NOT on the list, the method used in my town is 70% of average NADA value, period. Doesn't matter about condition, mileage, age, color, options, religion, race, economic status, political affiliation..... Maybe your town is different.

Here is a personal example. In 2010 I did not have EA plates on my 308. The car was assessed at $24140. I went to the assessor to have the tax break applied. She opened the NADA book, looked up an 85 308 GTB and took 70% of it, $24104. She didn't care squat about whether the car was perfect or trash. Same thing would apply to those truck but, as I noted the NADA would be about $7k.

But if the car is on the list the assessor doesn't have a choice. The state set the value.

 

No. the appraisal is a huge issue beside the silliness of being forced to flip flop plates and paying for it. as I said any owners of rare cars/exotics and vintage should ensure these guys do not stay in office as they will try until they succeed regardless of anything else they do. It is as strong as I feel about this.

I see the reverse apraisal issue for insurance. My CT DD is worth a lot more that a CT injected. Typically 35% more as they are not a lot of them in the US.
Yet the insurance company has given me a very hard time to insure it at its value. Even insurers of exotics are not very efficient at that and they need pro appraisers. An injected countach trashed is worth 70K. Agood injected Countach is worth $100K+ A good DD can fetch up to $180K. Both cars on Nada would be the same value. Insurance told me that countach values are not reaching $100K when i started the argument.
Dealing with insurance is one thing as you can shop. But imagine dealing with the gov on this issue?
Insurers want to take the value down while the gov would want to value at the top.
With rare assets this is a receipe for mahem. For sure the whole antique car industry in connecticut would see their business plumetting and car regs going to other states or being take off plates. This scheme would bring no net revenues to anybody.

finally, the comments " if you cannot afford it, stay out" or " if you have to ask the price, you cant afford it" is the most ridiculous thing that can be said. first wealthy people did not become wealthy on that argument. I did not.
Second, this snobby way of thinking opens the doors for the recipient to get shafted all the way by everyone with a smile.

Fighting for fairness on what you have is what makes things go around and I admire people who get their dream thru sacrifice. Special car onwership is a dream for a tight community, we should be mindful that not all owners are very wealthy and can throw money out the window for no reasons. These people deserve respect too. I know some.

 

Seriously....anyone? Only people who enjoy paying more than their fair share. I do not see the logic in his arguments. The "let's tax anyone who has something we don't" is infectious obviously. This whole thing is a bad idea.

 

Well said. Snobby, elitist crap that makes us all look bad. The attitude that you will spend more because you can is just ridiculous. We at the Connecticut gathering know more than one person that has a net worth in the 100's of millions of dollars and they are not happy about this new bill either. Of course they also hang with us "rabble" so maybe it comes down to the persons character. Just my .02

--Mike

 

Deleted posts which I could. Does that help?

 

Hopefully the bill will be killed in its entirety when Berger's fellow Rep's see they are being used to help out Waterbury. I have a business there and its a joke what i pay in taxes. Luckily for most other Rep's its an easy no vote.

 

This is the history of last year's bill, which was promulgated by the same folks:

2011-04-07 - File Number 473
2011-04-07 - House Calendar Number 269
2011-04-07 - Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, House
2011-04-07 - Reported Out of Legislative Commissioners' Office
2011-04-01 - Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/06/11 5:00 PM
2011-03-23 - Filed with Legislative Commissioners' Office
2011-03-23 - Joint Favorable Substitute
2011-02-25 - Public Hearing 03/02
2011-02-23 - Referred to Joint Committee on Planning and Development
2011-02-22 - Drafted by Committee
2011-01-28 - Vote to Draft
2011-01-20 - Referred to Joint Committee on Planning and Development

I suspect we'll see a similar sequence of events... looks like it is running a little later than last year.