North Carolina Racers - NC DMV wants to car tax modifications
04-26-2009, 03:50 PM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2003
Location: Raleigh / Rolesville NC
Posts: 43,084
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes
on
24 Posts
North Carolina Racers - NC DMV wants to tax car modifications
Hi everyone,
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ATTACHED PROPOSED LEGISLATION DOESN’T JUST APPLY TO CARS 35 TEARS AND OLDER, BUT TO ANY CAR THAT THE DMV DEEMS MODIFIED [possibly due a new owner bringing something into question]. Modifications include anything to the frame, body, or chassis, or any component thereof (suspension parts are certainly part of your chassis and interpretation could very well include your drive train). LET’S SAY YOU PUT SOME NEW BRAKE CALIPERS OR A BOLT-ON ACCESSORY ON YOUR NEW C6 CORVETTE – THEN THIS COULD AFFECT YOU! It’s all left up to interpretation.
After a few hours of research and comparison, I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what is going on. Here is a description of the attached files for your reference (everyone has a right to draw their own conclusions):
S476 – the bill proposed to the Senate by the DMV
S820 – counter bill to the Senate (more owner-friendly)
H861 – House version of Senate bill S620
GS_20 – Current key parts of the current statutes
GS_105-187 – Current highway use taxation statutes
Imagine these scenarios (all of which could be taxed at a higher rate and make the car harder to sell):
- Some simple bolt-on bodywork could forever alter the registration status of your car
- Conversion to disc brakes or radial tires for safety could end up tripling your tax bill
- A car wanting to be restored BACK may be impossible to register as stock every again
- A rare option on a car could lead to countless hours trying to prove the car has not been modified
- You spend countless hours restoring a car and then get taxed more for all those hours spent
- You have to argue with a “trained” DMV employee who is supposed to know every detail about every car
- If you ever have to go before the committee, are you good friends with the commissioner?
The bottom line on proposal S476 is that they are trying to reclassify vehicles so that they can be taxed at a different rate. Notice how this is cleverly hidden at the end of the proposal. If a newly acquired vehicle is over 35, it could automatically require reclassification. But , let’s say a seller had changed his/her calipers (or maybe even tires/shocks) – boom, your 5-year-old Corvette is no longer taxed at the standard depreciated rate, it becomes taxed at a rate based on what the state thinks was spent on the car including all parts and labor necessary for any modifications – YOU COULD SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS RESTORING A CAR ONLY TO BE TAXED BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THE CAR, NOT WHAT NECESSARILY WHAT IT’S WORTH.
This is all at the discretion of a “trained” DMV employee who must come to your house to fully examine every aspect of your vehicle, possibly damaging it as certain parts may require disassembly! You must pay for this inspection. Selling a vehicle which has been modified without disclosure [and therefore requirement of this procedure] now becomes a misdemeanor. Many sellers might not even know their car had been modified. Who would ever want to buy your car if you ever had to replace a part? Finally when you have exhausted your time and patience, you ultimately go before a 5-person committee consisting of three DMV people and two members of the general public – all of whom are appointed at the sole discretion of the commissioner – in other words, taxation without representation.
If anyone has ever had to pay AMT or has a home being taxed based on a value they couldn’t possibly sell it for, then you know how these things go. What will happen next? Will all previously out-of-state vehicles require inspection for registration? What about all vehicles prior to ODB II? What about this just being part of inspection? This leaves the door wide open for havoc and more government with little gain. Remember, that bills are always proposed and passed based on the spirit of the law, but end up being enforced based on the letter of the law. Various interpretations of legal language can lead to situations where these are not necessarily one in the same.
If you can, please show up at the hearing!!! It is amazing how easily a committee can fold, once the public actually puts forth a unified opinion against a proposal. Again, Tuesday at 11am [bills S476 and S820] and Wednesday at 11am [H861].
Thanks,
The chair of the Senate Commerce committee is going to set both S476 (the DMV Bill) and S 820 (our bill) for simultaneous hearing Tuesday, April 28 at 11 am. If for some reason they are not reached, they will be reset for Thursday April 30, 2009. DMV will be there insisting their bill legalizing these inspections of our cars and charging us inspection fees be enacted into law. Links to the committee members and their respective email addresses and phone numbers are:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...%20Standing_67
We need emails sent to the Senate Commerce Committee members in support of S820 and in opposition to S476. Can you help by calling these Senators? Emails generally go unread.
On the House side H861, the House version of our bill, is scheduled to be heard in the House Transportation committee Wednesday, April 29 at 11 am. Here is the link to the committee membership and their respective email addresses and phone numbers:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...%20Standing_45
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ATTACHED PROPOSED LEGISLATION DOESN’T JUST APPLY TO CARS 35 TEARS AND OLDER, BUT TO ANY CAR THAT THE DMV DEEMS MODIFIED [possibly due a new owner bringing something into question]. Modifications include anything to the frame, body, or chassis, or any component thereof (suspension parts are certainly part of your chassis and interpretation could very well include your drive train). LET’S SAY YOU PUT SOME NEW BRAKE CALIPERS OR A BOLT-ON ACCESSORY ON YOUR NEW C6 CORVETTE – THEN THIS COULD AFFECT YOU! It’s all left up to interpretation.
After a few hours of research and comparison, I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what is going on. Here is a description of the attached files for your reference (everyone has a right to draw their own conclusions):
S476 – the bill proposed to the Senate by the DMV
S820 – counter bill to the Senate (more owner-friendly)
H861 – House version of Senate bill S620
GS_20 – Current key parts of the current statutes
GS_105-187 – Current highway use taxation statutes
Imagine these scenarios (all of which could be taxed at a higher rate and make the car harder to sell):
- Some simple bolt-on bodywork could forever alter the registration status of your car
- Conversion to disc brakes or radial tires for safety could end up tripling your tax bill
- A car wanting to be restored BACK may be impossible to register as stock every again
- A rare option on a car could lead to countless hours trying to prove the car has not been modified
- You spend countless hours restoring a car and then get taxed more for all those hours spent
- You have to argue with a “trained” DMV employee who is supposed to know every detail about every car
- If you ever have to go before the committee, are you good friends with the commissioner?
The bottom line on proposal S476 is that they are trying to reclassify vehicles so that they can be taxed at a different rate. Notice how this is cleverly hidden at the end of the proposal. If a newly acquired vehicle is over 35, it could automatically require reclassification. But , let’s say a seller had changed his/her calipers (or maybe even tires/shocks) – boom, your 5-year-old Corvette is no longer taxed at the standard depreciated rate, it becomes taxed at a rate based on what the state thinks was spent on the car including all parts and labor necessary for any modifications – YOU COULD SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS RESTORING A CAR ONLY TO BE TAXED BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THE CAR, NOT WHAT NECESSARILY WHAT IT’S WORTH.
This is all at the discretion of a “trained” DMV employee who must come to your house to fully examine every aspect of your vehicle, possibly damaging it as certain parts may require disassembly! You must pay for this inspection. Selling a vehicle which has been modified without disclosure [and therefore requirement of this procedure] now becomes a misdemeanor. Many sellers might not even know their car had been modified. Who would ever want to buy your car if you ever had to replace a part? Finally when you have exhausted your time and patience, you ultimately go before a 5-person committee consisting of three DMV people and two members of the general public – all of whom are appointed at the sole discretion of the commissioner – in other words, taxation without representation.
If anyone has ever had to pay AMT or has a home being taxed based on a value they couldn’t possibly sell it for, then you know how these things go. What will happen next? Will all previously out-of-state vehicles require inspection for registration? What about all vehicles prior to ODB II? What about this just being part of inspection? This leaves the door wide open for havoc and more government with little gain. Remember, that bills are always proposed and passed based on the spirit of the law, but end up being enforced based on the letter of the law. Various interpretations of legal language can lead to situations where these are not necessarily one in the same.
If you can, please show up at the hearing!!! It is amazing how easily a committee can fold, once the public actually puts forth a unified opinion against a proposal. Again, Tuesday at 11am [bills S476 and S820] and Wednesday at 11am [H861].
Thanks,
The chair of the Senate Commerce committee is going to set both S476 (the DMV Bill) and S 820 (our bill) for simultaneous hearing Tuesday, April 28 at 11 am. If for some reason they are not reached, they will be reset for Thursday April 30, 2009. DMV will be there insisting their bill legalizing these inspections of our cars and charging us inspection fees be enacted into law. Links to the committee members and their respective email addresses and phone numbers are:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...%20Standing_67
We need emails sent to the Senate Commerce Committee members in support of S820 and in opposition to S476. Can you help by calling these Senators? Emails generally go unread.
On the House side H861, the House version of our bill, is scheduled to be heard in the House Transportation committee Wednesday, April 29 at 11 am. Here is the link to the committee membership and their respective email addresses and phone numbers:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...%20Standing_45
Last edited by AU N EGL; 04-26-2009 at 03:56 PM.
04-26-2009, 04:42 PM
#2
Race Director
thanks for bringing this up, as it's the first I've heard of it. Personally, legitimate upgrades should be taxed , just like additions to your home/property would. I'm assuming the concern is over proper appraisal of said modifications.
You marked this for "racers", but obviously racers don't tag their cars, so it really only applies to DE'ers.
My advice, make friends with a dealer, and "borrow" a tag for the occasional trip on the street, avoiding sales and property tax altogether!
You marked this for "racers", but obviously racers don't tag their cars, so it really only applies to DE'ers.
My advice, make friends with a dealer, and "borrow" a tag for the occasional trip on the street, avoiding sales and property tax altogether!
04-26-2009, 05:26 PM
#3
Team Owner
Has anyone passed this on to SEMA? I would think that they could be of help to car owners in this mess. They have deep pockets and good attorneys.
04-26-2009, 05:27 PM
#4
and I thought New York State is out of control...
"Modifications should be taxed" I thought they already are. First you pay a bunch of Federal taxes on your income, then a bunch of state taxes. When you finally save enough to purchase said modification, you have the pleasure of paying sales tax on the hardware and services. How can you make a case for even more taxation?
"Modifications should be taxed" I thought they already are. First you pay a bunch of Federal taxes on your income, then a bunch of state taxes. When you finally save enough to purchase said modification, you have the pleasure of paying sales tax on the hardware and services. How can you make a case for even more taxation?
04-26-2009, 08:16 PM
#6
http://www.semasan.com/main/main.asp...ANcom/HomePage
I don't live in NC but this is the type of BS we have to live with and like it in Canada. Our freedoms have been eroded. In our province, we can only buy auto insurance from the government.
SEMA SAN needs the help of North Carolinians.....
URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT (UPDATE)
North Carolina Street Rod and Replica Vehicle Bill to be Considered in Senate Committee on Tuesday, Apr. 28, 2009
A version of SEMA model legislation to create a vehicle registration classification for street rods, replicas and custom vehicles will be heard by the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee. The committee will consider a substitute to S.B. 820 (Click here to review substitute). The substitute is a product of negotiations between SEMA and the hobbyist network in North Carolina. We believe that the substitute version of S.B. 820, if passed, will retain the key components of the SEMA-model language while relieving vehicle owners of unfair title branding and inspection concerns. SEMA also believes that the substitute bill adequately addresses the concerns expressed in recent weeks by all parties, while offering the benefits other states have experienced from these new registration and titling classifications.
We Urge You to Call All Members of the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee (Contact Information Below) Immediately to Request Their Support for the Substitute to S.B. 820
* S.B. 820 provides specific registration and titling classes for street rods, custom vehicles and replicas. Street rods are of a pre-1949 vintage; customs are of the post-1949 era.
* S.B. 820 allows for the use of non-original materials and creates a titling and registration criterion that assigns replica vehicles the same model year designation as the production vehicle intended to be replicated.
* S.B. 820 requires that the title of a replica vehicle must clearly indicate that the vehicle is a replica and not an original.
* S.B. 820 only holds street rods, customs and replicas to the equipment standards specified by law during the model year listed on the title of the vehicle.
* S.B. 820 provides an avenue by which the state can accurately and fairly title and register these specialty vehicles.
* S.B. 820 recognizes the immeasurable amount of time, money and attention automotive enthusiasts invest in their hobby cars. Street rods, customs and replicas are the same crowd pleasers that participate in exhibitions and as parade vehicles, and whose owners regularly contribute to charities and civic events. This legislation represents an opportunity to acknowledge this family hobby and to protect it for future generations.
DON’T DELAY! Please call members of the Senate Commerce Committee immediately to urge support for the substitute to S.B. 820
North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee
Senator R.C. Soles – Chairman
Phone: 919/733-5963
Senator Floyd McKissick – Vice Chairman
Phone: 919/733-4599
Senator David Hoyle – Vice Chairman
Phone: 919/733-5734
Senator Tony Rand – Vice Chairman
Phone: 919/733-9892
Senator Tom Apodaca
Phone: 919/733-5745
Senator Phil Berger
Phone: 919/733-5708
Senator Doug Berger
Phone: 919/715-8363
Senator Harris Blake
Phone: 919/733-4809
Senator Julia Boseman
Phone: 919/715-2525
Senator Peter Brunstetter
Phone: 919/733-7850
Senator Debbie Clary
Phone: 919/715-3038
Senator Katie Dorsett
Phone: 919/715-3042
Senator Tony Foriest
Phone: 919/301-1446
Senator James Forrester
Phone: 919/715-3050
Senator Linda Garrou
Phone: 919/733-5620
Senator W. Edward Goodall
Phone: 919/733-7659
Senator Steve Goss
Phone: 919/733-5742
Senator Malcolm Graham
Phone: 919/733-5650
Senator Neal Hunt
Phone: 919/733-5850
Senator Jim Jacumin
Phone: 919/715-7823
Senator Clark Jenkins
Phone: 919/715-3040
Senator Martin Nesbitt
Phone: 919/715-3001
Senator William Purcell
Phone: 919/733-5953
Senator Bob Rucho
Phone: 919/733-5655
Senator Larry Shaw
Phone: 919/733-9349
Senator Josh Stein
Phone: 919/715-6400
Senator Richard Stevens
Phone: 919/733-5653
Senator Don Vaughan
Phone: 919/733-5856
Check the SEMA SAN url for more info.
