POST SCRIPTS

I recently bought a car, and even on the buying end, I couldn't help but notice those ferocious warnings in big DMV lettering -- about how if the seller don't fill out that paperwork and send it off pronto, they are still fiscally responsible to the State for the vehicle.

Our Republic's real hard on folk who don't pay attention.

Jack, I'm a little confused. If you sold the car why wasn't the bill sent to the new owner? If the new owner placed it in a museum wasn't he still liable for the non-use fee? Or did the new owner fail to register the sale? Doesn't the seller usually report the sale of a car to the DMV whether or not the new owner does and wouldn't that cause them to chase him with their dang fees?

Doncha just love bureaucratic cr*p...I'll think I'll go take some aspirin now. Have you got a big mattress?

I was jusat reading through this again (glutton for punishment?)...Franchise Tax Board isn't associated with the DMV fees, it's sales tax. Did they say they were assessing you for sales tax due on the sale?

Jack, Must be past my bedtime, please ignore my last comment, it was inaccurate to a spectacular degree!

I sold the car to a museum and they didn't do the DMV thing since it was just for display... never going to be on the road again. As for me, I sent in my paperwork to DMV with another vehicle and I think they confused or lost the info attached to records of the second vehicle.

My humble country logic says the ONLY thing DMV should do when tags expire is send one courtesy notice and their obligation and interest in said vehicle ought to end right there, its over.

I really don't see any need to keep billing a person year after year and adding on penalties because they "assume" the vehicle might be on the road. Thats another case of being presumed guilty and it goes against our notion of fairness.

Bottom line...even if it is a car, its still my personal property and what I chose to do with it once the tags expire is up to me, unless I am driving illegally on the road and then we have laws for that.

It was like that for about the first 80 years in California, until the democrats took power and they just went on a frenzy to pass thousands of idiotic laws, just like this DMV license law that almost got me.

I guess that DMV turns collections over to Franchise Tax because they have so much intrusive power to make collections...I really don't know what else it could be? Gee, I need to track down some deadbeat renters that stiffed me I don't suppose Franchise Tax would .... nah, probably not..lol

Ah taxes, governments way of sticking it to producers for the benefit of non-producers....ok thats a little extreme, but I completely sympathize with you Jack.

I bought a house in WA as a primary residence, which i then turned around and sold at a decent profit so I could buy a different house. At no time did I own more than one house, so there shouldnt have been a problem. Furthermore I took the profit I had made from that house and sunk it ALL into my primary residence. I have just found out that I now might have to pay capitol gains, (you know, that tax that a disinterested third party (government) inflicts on you for being succesful on a buisness transaction in which you assumed all of the risk). It was my understanding that if I rolled the profit from a primary dwelling into another primamry dwelling I would not have to pay capitol gains.

But hey if we had a tax code that the average person could understand we would have to find new jobs for all the beuracrats who currently explain it.

Bush was right on the money when he advocated cutting capitol gains and divedend taxes. these are taxes which punish succesful investment. What a ridiculous notion. Such a proposition could only be thought up by progressives.

The bottom line is, the government wants its cut, and so do the 40% of Americans who are allowed to vote, but dont pay taxes. And you are going to give it to them, your personal property rights be damned!

I dont care if you worked hard for your standard of living, I dont care that you assumed risk, I dont care that you could have just as easily gone bankrupt as succeded in your venture, the bottom line is you assumed risk were succesful and I didnt, so you OWE me.

If you want to find an activity as frustrating as finding a corner in a round room, try explaining to a progressive, that it is actually "unfair" to make a wealthier person pay more in taxes when they do not recieve any more help from the government than a poor person. In fact, technically speaking, its "unfair" for a wealthier person to have their assets taken and given to somene, who statitistically is probably recieving MORE assistance from government programs than the wealthier person.

So essentially, to a progressive, it is "fair" for the person who is using less to pay more for a person who pays nothing.

This is what happens when emotions speaks lounder than logic, exactly the kind of thing Socrates was talking about.

As for me, I dont consider myslef wealthy at all, (When I first left high school I was making a whooping 1400 a month and living in a 500 sq ft apt. with my wife) all though I wouldnt mind working toward it. It does seem interesting to me that with every stetch up the economic ladder, there is another progressive tax attempting to keep me in my place.

Progressives are a true friend to the poor, just dont ever presume to climb any higher, or you will see how fast they can turn on you.

Nick I am pretty sure you would not owe capital gains. When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $500,000 in profit as a married person and not owe any capital gains taxes.

According to this recent article, "Most people are not going to have a tax obligation unless their gain is huge," says Bob Trinz, a senior tax analyst at RIA, which provides tax information and software to tax professionals.

Before May 7, 1997, the only way you could avoid paying taxes on your home-sale profit was to use the money to buy another, more-expensive house within two years."

If your home was your principal residence, which it was, then you should be ok, unless there is a minimum time period that you must occupy the home that you sold...I am not aware of this, but its all I could think of that might incur capital gains.

I am fairly sure that Nick needed to deposit the proceeds from the sale of his house with a holding company to avoid the capital gains. Then transfer the money from the holding co to the escrow on the new home. Once the IRS FEELS that you can exercise control over the profit they will assume that you owe a capital gains tax.

Doesn’t the one time tax fee sale of a home have an age requirement? 55, 60 years or so?

I filed the DMV notice of transfer on a car that I gave away. The person I gave the car to called me distraught that the DVM came after them for violations the people she sold the car to, after all neither she nor the next people bothered to register the car.

I think the money in question was from a house already sold and the profits from it were used in a down on the next house. That could be a problem.

Seems that a seller will not have any taxable gain to report if they sell the house 2 years and 1 day after they buy it and they have established it was their principle residence. Any less time and there is a tax "gain" problem. Less than a year of ownership and it's a short term capital gains, unless you can do something creative like Pypr has suggested. Around here this would be a Starker Trust aka a "1031" exchange.

Anyone else have a solid answer or ideas on this?

Libby: I recently bought a car, and even on the buying end, I couldn't help but notice those ferocious warnings in big DMV lettering -- about how if the seller don't fill out that paperwork and send it off pronto, they are still fiscally responsible to the State for the vehicle.

Our Republic's real hard on folk who don't pay attention.

Jack: Libby, I think you were not paying attention. I said I sent in my release of liability and notified the DMV again via a letter. That was part of the reason why this irked me.

Next, it wasn't Republicans that modified this collections process to include Franchise Tax, it was the Democrats. They are the ones with a penchant for raising taxes and taking money from the citizens in creative ways!

About three years ago I sold a car that is now costing me. Apparently, three years after mailing my “Release of Liability Form� I come to find out that the person who I sold it to, didn't register the vehicle with the DMV. The vehicle was towed and the towing company tried to get a hold of me (so they say). Supposedly, they sent me numerous notices to an old address. When I relocated about two years ago, I updated my new address with the DMV and still don’t understand why the towing company was sending me mail at my old address.

Eventually the towing company passed on this account to the collections agency and I soon discovered this by reviewing my credit report. I contacted the collections agency who then informed me about everything I just told you. I spoke to a collections representative who then told me that if I wanted to get off the hook, I would have to prove the “Release of Liability Form� was sent to the DMV prior to the towing date. He also said that I could pay up and take guy that bought it to court(like I have the cash). This all started yesterday......so I’m trying figure how to get out of this $1, 200 MESS!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

-John

John - My suggestion would be to immediately file another notice of transfer with DMV, note the old date of sale and fill in all the buyers information you know. (You might have to get a copy of your bank deposit to recover that info.)

Next, file a writen response to the collection agency so they have full info. of what happened. This should take you off the hook.

The burden of proof is on the collectors to prove you owe the debt and given your official notice of transfer, signed under penalty of perjury, well, that ought to outway anything they have. Good luck.