3 ms·

Tax advantages are not tax evasion. Otherwise, why bother with doing anything that is tax advantaged if when anyone calls it tax evasion or accuses someone of a

by mannanj 3mo ago

Tax advantages are not tax evasion. Otherwise, why bother with doing anything that is tax advantaged if when anyone calls it tax evasion or accuses someone of a crime the accused just give up and takes guilt (assumption of guilt over innocence) paying whatever is asked? Insurance is a bit tricky though I've heard it's simple. Most companies don't ask or inquire about where the cars registered, and neither do repair shops or parts of the claim process inquire into this. If you're uncomfortable with this, you can DYOR and check what happened for claims if a driver who's personally insured is driving a vehicle registered under an LLC/company. I think it isn't true that just because a vehicle is registered by a company, it cannot be used for personal purposes or that insurance companies would make claims more difficult (though check yourself and I'm happy to know what you find)

FireBeyond 3mo ago
At least in my state, as a former emergency services worker, our EVIP (emergency vehicle incident prevention) course (which serves as a "substitute" for requiring a CDL to drive an emergency vehicle) absolutely tells you that driver liability can and will flow through to your personally, even when driving a work vehicle for work purposes. (Because that also comes with a presumption of liability for any incident that happens in "emergency mode" departments, agencies will generally also hold insurance specifically for that flow through that says "while the law says you can do anything, with due regard, in emergency mode, as long as you stay in our more restrictive SOPs, our insurer will also cover your personal liability".)
0x1d7 3mo ago
Those charged by the AG in CA were charged with tax fraud. It was apparent that they were actively avoiding taxes based on recorded messages and fraudulent documents. https://www.thedrive.com/news/california-is-done-with-rich-guys-registering-their-exotic-cars-in-montana https://www.thedrive.com/news/california-is-done-with-rich-g... > One defendant texted that another conspirator “made me provide a fake bill of lading which cost $200 but did allow me to pickup the Urus.”
kube-system 3mo ago
Many states have laws that require a vehicle to be registered in-state if they have established residence, or similar. Even if you are able to register a vehicle legally in another state, that does not necessarily exempt you from obligations in your own state... even if it would for non-residents passing through.
- mannanj 3mo ago
  Whose vehicle though? I think you should look legally at the distinction between ownership and use. Do you need to register your friends vehicles if you drive them for a weekend and trigger an in-state registration requirement (i.e. California as one of the comments mentioned) Can't logically be true right?
  - kube-system 3mo ago
    When it comes to paying tax, ownership/use/residency is up for examination by tax authorities. They will make a determination based on their evidence and if you don't like it you can take it to tax court and you all can show a judge your evidence.
    - mannanj 3mo ago
      Hi the ownership/use/residency is not something that can be interpreted subjectively in cases where they like, to prejudiciously or personally target select individuals they don't like. I'm simply stating that when it comes to paying tax, it's up to wherever you live to articulate clearly when and how you pay tax when it's applicable to you. When you don't owe tax, you don't pay it. When you owe it, you pay it. However don't cloud up the space and confuse people by saying you owe tax for property you don't own because someone feels that you are evading tax. That's not actually lawful or law based justice, that's hate/fear and prejudice based simply to prove a point. For example here, that privacy is not allowed and that you should be afraid for not taking ownership of things you use such as vehicles. In cases where you use things you don't own, the law is usually pretty clearly articulated: pay use tax for what you use, pay registration and sales/registration taxes for things you own. Tax authorities know this and will articulate it clearly usually, except I suppose in certain prejudiced and discriminatory cases like when privacy is concerned like vehicle registration by LLCs. Now do you need to take ownership of things you use in a state just so you can hypothetically pay a tax for an evasion accusation that you don't apply to, I would be incredibly surprised to see if any state actually is saying this - I don't think its constitutionally or legally sound in any way. Instead, what I see, is fear mongering, authoritarian language and discourse and simply as I originally stated in my post Ad Hominem and logically fallacy based communication.

by mannanj 3mo ago

FireBeyond 3mo ago

At least in my state, as a former emergency services worker, our EVIP (emergency vehicle incident prevention) course (which serves as a "substitute" for requiring a CDL to drive an emergency vehicle) absolutely tells you that driver liability can and will flow through to your personally, even when driving a work vehicle for work purposes. (Because that also comes with a presumption of liability for any incident that happens in "emergency mode" departments, agencies will generally also hold insurance specifically for that flow through that says "while the law says you can do anything, with due regard, in emergency mode, as long as you stay in our more restrictive SOPs, our insurer will also cover your personal liability".)

0x1d7 3mo ago

Those charged by the AG in CA were charged with tax fraud. It was apparent that they were actively avoiding taxes based on recorded messages and fraudulent documents. https://www.thedrive.com/news/california-is-done-with-rich-guys-registering-their-exotic-cars-in-montana https://www.thedrive.com/news/california-is-done-with-rich-g... > One defendant texted that another conspirator “made me provide a fake bill of lading which cost $200 but did allow me to pickup the Urus.”

kube-system 3mo ago

Many states have laws that require a vehicle to be registered in-state if they have established residence, or similar. Even if you are able to register a vehicle legally in another state, that does not necessarily exempt you from obligations in your own state... even if it would for non-residents passing through.

mannanj 3mo ago
Whose vehicle though? I think you should look legally at the distinction between ownership and use. Do you need to register your friends vehicles if you drive them for a weekend and trigger an in-state registration requirement (i.e. California as one of the comments mentioned) Can't logically be true right?
- kube-system 3mo ago
  When it comes to paying tax, ownership/use/residency is up for examination by tax authorities. They will make a determination based on their evidence and if you don't like it you can take it to tax court and you all can show a judge your evidence.
  - mannanj 3mo ago
    Hi the ownership/use/residency is not something that can be interpreted subjectively in cases where they like, to prejudiciously or personally target select individuals they don't like. I'm simply stating that when it comes to paying tax, it's up to wherever you live to articulate clearly when and how you pay tax when it's applicable to you. When you don't owe tax, you don't pay it. When you owe it, you pay it. However don't cloud up the space and confuse people by saying you owe tax for property you don't own because someone feels that you are evading tax. That's not actually lawful or law based justice, that's hate/fear and prejudice based simply to prove a point. For example here, that privacy is not allowed and that you should be afraid for not taking ownership of things you use such as vehicles. In cases where you use things you don't own, the law is usually pretty clearly articulated: pay use tax for what you use, pay registration and sales/registration taxes for things you own. Tax authorities know this and will articulate it clearly usually, except I suppose in certain prejudiced and discriminatory cases like when privacy is concerned like vehicle registration by LLCs. Now do you need to take ownership of things you use in a state just so you can hypothetically pay a tax for an evasion accusation that you don't apply to, I would be incredibly surprised to see if any state actually is saying this - I don't think its constitutionally or legally sound in any way. Instead, what I see, is fear mongering, authoritarian language and discourse and simply as I originally stated in my post Ad Hominem and logically fallacy based communication.