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.

 

The Public hearing testimony was finally published

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBillAllComm.asp?bill=HB-05405&doc_year=2012

A representative from Connecticut Counsel of Car Clubs (4C) made a plea (thank you Dave) along with the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) in opposition to the bill. Mr. Jeffery Berger submitted testimony in support of the bill.

After reading the opposition testimony I came to realize that nobody is representing the massive difficulties to be encountered appraising these cars fairly nor representing the imposing costs associated with partial or full restoration necessary for most 20 year old cars.

In addition, we (the hobbyists) are not adequately addressing Mr. Berger's recommendation of a standardized mill rate for all towns where tax revenue would be collected by the state and doled out to the municipalities as the state see's fit. Please note tat Mr. Berger represents the Waterbury area who's mill rate is among the highest in the State. I can clearly see why he would support that line of thought.

We should also be mindful of the text submitted by Mr. Berger. I cannot verify it yet but he appears to be trying to average the mill rates of all towns in CT. not just for cars but possibly for all property taxes. He calls it revenue neutral because the income generated for the Municipalities will not change (yet) but rather property taxes for presently responsible and lower cost municipalities will be raised dramatically while expensive cities will be dropped dramatically. See where this is going.... The poor cities that cannot generate income but generate most of the expenses will simply take it from the rich towns.

 

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.

 

The range between low and high are VERY dramatic after 20 years because the thing that creates value moves away from time with a standard depreciation curve and rely far more on condition and history. At 20 years the curve become MUCH less dependable. Its why they defined it at 20 years to begin with.

The point that I'm trying to make that nobody seems to get is this:

These 2 1991 Chevy's will be assessed at the exact same value, NADA Median. How much tax would you expect to pay on truck #1? How much tax would you expect to pay on truck #2? Guess what...They are the same truck. Now your asking a town clerk to determine how good the resto job was....Really. You think NADA addresses this? You think your town assessor is qualified to make this determination? You think you won't need to have the condition assessed by unqualified people every single year? Its the government....they can't do anything efficiently. Do you really think the guy that did this resto to his truck would have done it if he knew his taxes would increase by a multiplication factor near 100?

to try and make it more personal for you. How much would you pay in taxes for a 308 exactly the same as yours that was in a fiery crash but was fixed compared to your never crashed 308 that you've babied over the years? Do you think you'll be able to talk your assessor into believing the fixed one is worth less than yours? Is it worth less?

Regarding your final statement "its got to change". They are trying to change it...we are trying to change it back. Remember the woman in Bridgeport who was recently arrested for sending her son to school in Norwalk. Hows that going to work if her reduced Bridgeport tax dollars are communal with the increase Norwalk tax dollars? Gonna be an uphill fight to keep your kids in your school system when the city folk find out we are all sharing the tax base. Its funny the people who believe we should all share are the one who don't have stuff to share. I say they should work for it just like I had too.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

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.

 

truck #1 never becomes truck #2 because the owner cannot or will not pay the State the additional $9,000 (1,000 per year times 9 years) AFTER he spends a huge amount of money fixing it.. Instead...it just gets scrapped. So does that 308 that was in a crash but was restored. Its still not worth anywhere near the median value for a 308. You simply cant see past your own nose.

Thanks for your help. Go away.

 

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.

 

Your not only a Liberal...Your an attorney also huh....The law in Marlborough will no longer apply. The mill rate will become standardized to ALL Connecticut municipalities. You will be paying the same rate as Waterbury. Their taxes go down and yours go up. Still not sure but that might apply to your house also.

You'll be sending your LOCAL taxes to the State for them to distribute as they see fit.

What do you care anyway? All we are trying to do is help and all you can do is point out how you think we are wrong. Doesn't seem to matter how many disagree with you.

FYI...the part about modification exists in the law now....There are no changes to that text. Your assessor might decide that those wheels aren't stock therefore THE ENTIRE ANTIQUE, RARE OR SPECIALTY exemption doesn't apply to you EVER. Can't wait until some town clerk decides a 1968 Super bee is valued at $100,000 because its been modified. They'll be looking for back taxes for more than the car is worth.

 

To be fair....Is there a single person watching this thread that agree's with JohnK?

 

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

 

John... This thread was intended to help get the word out to other enthusiasts regarding issue's being considered at the State which may or may not affect them. It was supposed to be a source of information to help mount a semi-coordinated response to the State. It was supposed to provide a synopsis of the changes, some brief discussion about the effect of the individual changes, a way to follow the progress of the changes, and some detail about how to express the readers opinion regarding these changes directly to the people "in charge".

You have turned it into an argument of every single point that has fractured the flow of information making it now necessary for the reader to sift through 5 pages and filter out data that is simply argumentative.

You are not helping. As expressed a few times already, please move on. I'm trying desperately not to make this personal but moderation is not my strong suit.

 

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.

 

+10 Dave

I'm also heartened to see the CCM (Connecticut Conference of Municipalities) isn't supporting it.

 

OK...I'm still trying to learn about how this shi...stuff happens. My understanding is the a committee considers a bill or change, authors the text, listens to arguments both internally with other committee members and through public hearings, and tables the bill or sends it forward to the full house using a joint finding report with recommendations. Then the house votes it up or down and it becomes law or not. That is what I've ascertained by looking at the column headers across the schedule page (third link below here)

The status of HB5405 under the planning and development committee is presently difficult to ascertain.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05405&which_year=2012

It looks like its still in committee and has not been voted for a joint report yet because there is no vote tally sheet has provided.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocList.asp?comm_code=PD&doc_type=ts

If I understand the process correctly (not sure I do) then the committee must take action by 3/21, or 3/28 or 4/4 (Not sure regarding syntax of the schedule which date applies).

http://www.cga.ct.gov/lco/XLS/Committee_Deadlines_Current_Year.pdf

I'm watching intently and haven't seen any communications regarding the bill. I have no idea if that's good or bad.


I'll continue to watch and will provide information when/if I figure out whats going on

 

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.

 

The bill was sent forth today with a joint favorable recommendation with a 10 to 9 committee vote with 2 absent. The Tally sheet for the vote is here.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TS/H/2012HB-05405-R00PD-CV62-TS.htm

Time to get out the bigger guns and approach your local representative with MORE URGENT words expressing outrage. I cannot believe the responsible towns with lower mill rates are going to stand for a massive tax increase to appease the larger and less responsible cities with HIGH mill rates. The vote of the full house is the only thing standing in the way now.

access to your representative and a shortcut to their Email can be found here.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CGAFindLeg.asp

Please understand this means a statewide mill rate for ALL cars regardless of age, not just the antiques. It also means the State collects the tax and disperses it to the towns according to some schedule it develops and controls.

 

Here is my letter. If you choose to cut and paste, please make sure to modify the content to remove reference to my town of Essex and perhaps add reference to yours.
View attachment HB5405 opposition.doc

 

I spoke with my Selectman today regarding this issue. He was elected just this past November and is new to the office. He has promised to review the bill and offered some advise regarding verbiage and the next step. I'll be taking it to my Representative next who was the past Selectman of my town. I'm also bringing it to the attention of a car club here in Essex that has a few well known attorneys as members. Maybe they can lend a hand.