NC DMV Propsed new TAX to Modified Cars
04-26-2009, 03:36 PM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2003
Location: Raleigh / Rolesville NC
Posts: 43,084
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
25 Posts
NC DMV Propsed new TAX to Modified Cars
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
04-26-2009, 05:36 PM
#2
Le Mans Master
"§ 105‑187.3. Rate of tax.
(b) Retail Value. – The retail value of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued because of a sale of the motor vehicle by a retailer is the sales price of the motor vehicle, including all accessories attached to the vehicle when it is delivered to the purchaser, less the amount of any allowance given by the retailer for a motor vehicle taken in trade as a full or partial payment for the purchased motor vehicle. The retail value of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued because of a sale of the motor vehicle by a seller who is not a retailer is the market value of the vehicle, less the amount of any allowance given by the seller for a motor vehicle taken in trade as a full or partial payment for the purchased motor vehicle. A transaction in which two parties exchange motor vehicles is considered a sale regardless of whether either party gives additional consideration as part of the transaction. The retail value of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued because of a reason other than the sale of the motor vehicle is the market value of the vehicle. The market value of a vehicle is presumed to be be:
(1) For replica or custom-built vehicles, the value of all parts, materials, and labor, including the labor of a subcontractor, used to construct the vehicle.
(2) For all other vehicles, the value of the vehicle set in a schedule of values adopted by the Commissioner."
(b) Retail Value. – The retail value of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued because of a sale of the motor vehicle by a retailer is the sales price of the motor vehicle, including all accessories attached to the vehicle when it is delivered to the purchaser, less the amount of any allowance given by the retailer for a motor vehicle taken in trade as a full or partial payment for the purchased motor vehicle. The retail value of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued because of a sale of the motor vehicle by a seller who is not a retailer is the market value of the vehicle, less the amount of any allowance given by the seller for a motor vehicle taken in trade as a full or partial payment for the purchased motor vehicle. A transaction in which two parties exchange motor vehicles is considered a sale regardless of whether either party gives additional consideration as part of the transaction. The retail value of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued because of a reason other than the sale of the motor vehicle is the market value of the vehicle. The market value of a vehicle is presumed to be be:
(1) For replica or custom-built vehicles, the value of all parts, materials, and labor, including the labor of a subcontractor, used to construct the vehicle.
(2) For all other vehicles, the value of the vehicle set in a schedule of values adopted by the Commissioner."
04-26-2009, 06:24 PM
#3
Le Mans Master
Another state off my list of retirement possibilities.
04-27-2009, 08:58 AM
#4
Pro
Was able to send off emails to the senators and representatives, hope it helps. Keep us posted on what happens. As a resto mod owner I would think I would be impacted. Thanks for the alert. Tim
04-27-2009, 09:38 AM
#5
Le Mans Master
I've read a bit more into this and I see where you have concern.
The question becomes what is this "schedule of values"? Will it be NADA, KBB, or something off the cuff + the cost of modifications?
How are one-off restos and kit cars normally taxed? Is it based on the amount of work (labor + materials) or do they use a "market value" device?
For all other vehicles, the value of the vehicle set in a schedule of values adopted by the Commissioner."
How are one-off restos and kit cars normally taxed? Is it based on the amount of work (labor + materials) or do they use a "market value" device?
04-28-2009, 02:17 PM
#6
Pro
at its finest.
