I haven’t heard the whole thing yet, but I thought this might be interesting to post here: California Finally Closes the Montana Loophole for Exotic Cars
5 Likes
Something actually good done by California. Hope other states follow !
4 Likes
They’ll finally get that train from Los Angeles to San Francisco by closing the loophole, I’m sure.
8 Likes
Let’s see if they do something about Uhaul and Waymo vehicles.
Do you have any extra LLC’s in Florida so we can do the @JMMZKDTH G63 Special?
I don’t really understand this “loophole.” Most states have a law that if the vehicle is primarily driven in that state, you must register it, insure it, and pay taxes on the state the vehicle lives.
It has always been the case that buying and titling/registering a vehicle in another state such as Montana, in order to evade taxes, is considered tax evasion lol.
An “estimated” $20 million a year doesn’t sound like a lot compared to the $15 billion that Cali spent to lay down zero track on the California rail project.
4 Likes
As far as i know, @JMMZKDTH is not in Florida, otherwise I would be mowing his lawn every 2 weeks to learn from the Legend ! And for anyone else who can teach me the same with 911’s…
1 Like
Vehicles don’t live and no im not making fun, see reason below.
Well that’s for vehicle registered under an individual person’s name cause he lives in that state. For vehicle’s registered under a corporation, the corporation does not live in that state cause its not an individual person. It does business and can technically do business in any other states as well while it’s main business is legally registered in the state of Montana.
Now if a vehicle was registered in Montana under an individuals name, then yes you are correct, the resident state would catch up to them and require them to get it registered in home state.
2 Likes
No offense taken.
I was under the impression, in Florida for example, you must register the vehicle in FL if it used there for more than 90 calendar days per year.
1 Like
That’s only for vehicles registered under individuals. Not for vehicles leased under a corporation.
2 Likes
I always felt there were much more subtle ways of evading taxes (if you are so inclined) than to drive around with a plate stating such.
2 Likes
There’s a much better chance CA will spend $220 Mil on closing $20 Mil loophole.
4 Likes
While it’s not a huge magnitude, still a great policy move. Screw these guys who can’t be bothered to pay their taxes on their supercars
Pay to play baby. Also could discourage some of the speculation if you have to pay yearly fees and taxes on the cars which can be fairly significant instead of just parking car in a bubble in the garage.
2 Likes
It’s not just fat cats abusing this but government contractors as well. Possibly the worst offender is a company or companies running airport shuttles at LAX with Montana plates.
~300 unhoused will benefit from the estimated windfall of closing the loophole, assuming the solution cost doesn’t eclipse the loss
2 Likes
Not in LA where the average new homeless unit built with those H/HH, etc funds long exceeded $1 mil per unit.
2 Likes
Who’s the real criminal? 
1 Like
Ballots are a good place to start looking
3 Likes
For those of you that have not lived here before or do not live here now, it can be hard to understand why California would expend the time and effort to chase a “$20 million problem” with a $351 billion 2026-2027 budget.
That math is indeed 0.0000569801 of that 2026-2027 budget.
Sounds good but again, its about principle. Why not just pay the proper taxes in the first place ?
4 Likes