Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Montana LLC for sales tax? (Moving to LA which has 10.4% sales tax)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
For non MT presence, one has to look at the time in state before registering rules. Exceptions for military are usual. Some states pay a bounty for reporting violators.

If the case we are discussing is a CA residence/domicile with a MT llc for the vehicle, CA will not be happy and can, when caught or reported, require CA registration based on time in state.
 
My comment was referencing the risk being taxed\penalized by the state. Different states have different methods and penalties, some pretty absorbent. The state could easily prove tax avoidance based on the paper trail. So if the risk / reward is worth it that's fine.
its 100% worth the risk to me based on the cost to register/sell a vehicle from 2006 that the state collects sales tax on maybe 10 times over its lifetime. and another 2k a year to keep it with CA plates. Nah, my MT LLC can have it
 
You can add anyone as an AI, M. Mouse, B. Bunny, but it does not change the underlying policy, so I cannot see how a personal policy will actually cover a vehicle owned by an LLC.
So you're saying i hit someone and what, they sue.... me? im on the policy as the owner of that car. the title holder of the car is a single member LLC which is me. so what youre thinking happens is insurance tells me "well its owned by an LLC so we're not paying out for you personally since the person is suing you, as the driver", yet im insured as the driver? Or they sue the LLC and the insurance company says "this isnt commercial insurance" except my LLC is listed as additional insured, which extends the rights of the policy and claimant to the LLC, so I'll be able to represent the LLC in terms of claims.

You can name whomever or whatever as additional insured, doesnt mean the insurance company will accept them, and it also doesnt mean that its not worth the paper its printed on.
 
The way i see it is i dont trust my insurance company to do anything in my best interest without a fight anyway, they are there because the law says they have to be and im required to purchase them. I get the coverage i feel i need and pay them their fee and we move on. ideally i never have to deal with them again, because in my experience with fighting insurance for whats mine, in the most simple cut-and-dry cases, they act like you arent even their member.

All this to say, no matter how tic'd and tied the paperwork SHOULD or COULD be, they'll still fight me over something.
 
The insurer would use a fresh hire JD or LA to tell you your policy, with personal use and personal named insured is no good for a vehicle which requires commercial liability, I suspect even if you add the llc as a named insured (unless your policy already includes business use).

This is a case where head in sand is the worst option. Be straight with your insurer, n a form which you can prove (writing), and make sure you are covered.

The entity which helped you with the llc should have a list of insurers they know can work.

A likely similar situation is ride share. The ride share companies were forced to offer or maybe supply secondary supplemental commercial insurance as many were not telling their insurer it was business use.
 
I don't see an issue with insurance. @demundus is the operator of the vehicle and they carry insurance so if they wreck the car or hit someone their insurance will pay out.

But on the California side, if you get pulled over for some reason and the officer sees Montana plates with California driver's license and California insurance, they will force you to register the car in California and play any sales/excise taxes, reg fees, etc. So it's a gamble.
 
I think the LA tax rate is highway robbery. Why is it possible that each state can rape their citizens when it comes to a car purchase where others are conservative. Take SC for instance, they have a cap associated with their vehicle tax code. I just don't understand how LA can get away with this. But now look at Texas, they are charging EV owners an additional fee to register an electric. They claim this is for road tax and I say that they in turn should be offering a carbon credit to EV owners, not being charged an additional fees. It's as if doing the right thing by the climate change myth is nothing more than a penalty. Government is not serious after all. We spent over $8,000 in taxes and fees registering our 2 new to us (1 used, 1 new) Teslas this month. That's a lot of MY money for the state to be pissing away. I would have went the LLC route but I didn't want to tie up that much of our disposable income in order to pay cash or put the vehicles in an LLC name. Then there is the issue with insurance. Commercial insurance is in most examples twice the price of non commercial insurance.
 
I don't see an issue with insurance. @demundus is the operator of the vehicle and they carry insurance so if they wreck the car or hit someone their insurance will pay out.

But on the California side, if you get pulled over for some reason and the officer sees Montana plates with California driver's license and California insurance, they will force you to register the car in California and play any sales/excise taxes, reg fees, etc. So it's a gamble.
Maybe there is some sort of non owned auto coverage, maybe, but only a licensed insurance person in the appropriate state can answer. I believe I am correct - but most posters do 😁

Llc owned is in no way going to be properly coverd by a personal policy. Take a ride share and ask the driver how they are insured. There has to be some business use of the llc owned auto or the veil is broken, and the llc out of state is broken on its face too.
 
What a fantastically privileged and utopian world you must live in where you have the luxury of insulting people for needing to finance basic needs like transportation. Don’t bother responding with “we’re taking about Lamborghinis here” - your “advice” and opinion on this topic is consistent and unwavering whether we’re talking about Ford Fiestas or Ferrari F40s.

I will say though, just like the real Dave Ramsey you’re pretty spot-on at flinging overt insults while calling people out for exactly the same. You even worked a bit of xenophobia in there - well played.

I will now go pour myself a cup of coffee while you type your response about how you lifted yourself up by your bootstraps as a poor white man in America and made every dollar you have entirely on your own with no societal benefit or privilege whatsoever (don’t worry, it’s a big mug, you’ve got a minute).

If paying $1,500 cash for "transportation" as you put it is privileged then I guess that's what I am. Through doing that for many years, working hard and making smart financial sacrifices (lifting myself up by my bootstraps, as you put it) I'm now able to pay cash for much more expensive cars, among other things. But it's not luck or anything magical. Simple concepts that are difficult for many such as: Don't buy what you can't afford.

People's definition of "afford" is what costs them being able to be truly financially independent. They assume that means monthly payment which is what those who sell you the items want you to consider... not the overall price of said item. I know because I used to be in the car industry and discussing monthly payment was laways the objective. It's what allows for the most profit. Who do you think pays that profit? The buyer, with the bank financing.. of course.

The problem is that you seem to attach words like "need" and "transportation" to vehicles like Teslas and Lamborghinis. This in an effort to somehow make them seem crucial. That's just silly. All financing cars does is allow people to buy cars they should NOT be buying in the first place. Not only are they pissing away their hard earned money away on payments and interest but it allows them to get into an even bigger depreciating asset that is also losing money on the back end, day by day.

They're figuratively burning the candle from both ends. They then wonder why there isn't enough money left to buy a house... never once connecting the dots between those two directly-related financial decisions. Nobody HAS to finance a car. Nobody. It's always in their best interest to NOT finance a depreciating asset. Doing so only accelerates their ability to make bad financial decisions.

Only people who find their own self worth in something like their car would see anything I've said as insulting. But you are right about one thing, my opinion on this topic is unwavering because I've made the same stupid decisions because I wasn't as financially educated as I foolishly thought I was.

While I don't blindly subscribe to all of Dave Ramsey's teachings, I know who he is and he's spot on with the financing cars thing. People want to assign emotion that allows them to justify it but the math doesn't support their claims. If you want to discuss finances it would be foolish to ignore basic math as the #'s are pretty obvious for anyone to crunch the math on. The logical approach beats the emotional one on financial topics. That is of course unless the answer will go against their desire to make foolish emotional decisions when it comes to massively expensive depreciating assets. Who would do that though, right? (I'd insert a laughy face here but the fact that this is most of our count is painful and sad)

Lastly, I want to address the claim of xenophobia as it was an unfortunate example of spell check autocorrecting my phrase of "Russian bot" to "Russian boy" which wouldn't even make sense in this context. This forum doesn't allow for user edits so... here we are. It wasn't xenophobia (until AI becomes a protected class, anyway) and only glancingly even registers as a personal insult even to the most sensitive of characters.

Based on the personal attacks the individual I addressed said about me when all I was doing was talking about the facts, I'd say that I'm actually doing a solid job of sticking to the facts on this one.
 
We spent over $8,000 in taxes and fees registering our 2 new to us (1 used, 1 new) Teslas this month. That's a lot of MY money for the state to be pissing away.
You live in Texas, one of the higher effective tax states in the nation, higher than CA, the boogeyman for high taxes. What did you expect? State's gotta pay for for roads, police officers, and schools somehow. Why do you assume Texas is wasting the money they charged you?

 
The problem is that you seem to attach words like "need" and "transportation" to vehicles like Teslas and Lamborghinis. This in an effort to somehow make them seem crucial.
I’ve done nothing of the sort. Transportation in whatever form is a basic need. It’s generally required to get to and from a job to satisfy all manner of other basic needs. As I said in my original post, your hard-line approach to this doesn’t change if we’re talking Fiesta vs F40.

That's just silly. All financing cars does is allow people to buy cars they should NOT be buying in the first place.
I’ll go ahead and leave it here - this remains a fantastically privileged and out of touch opinion that simply doesn’t acknowledge the reality of the world that most people in the US live in and fight against. Blaming them instead of the myriad systems set up to fleece them is not something I’m willing to get on board with. Reliable personal transportation is not an option for most Americans. Nor is not having it until you’ve saved enough money to pay cash when transportation is essential to almost every method of earning said cash. Are there plenty of “ballers on a budget” making self-inflicted bad financial decisions? Of course. Can we use that as an excuse for hard-line rules that don’t acknowledge reality? IMO no.

Lastly, I want to address the claim of xenophobia as it was an unfortunate example of spell check autocorrecting my phrase of "Russian bot" to "Russian boy"
Acknowledged and accepted. 👍🏻 My apologies.
 
Wow thanks for all the replies, I guess its not as cut as dry as I thought, I found some online sites they basically sell the service but then I read just as likely if you have a Montana plate you are basically asking to get pulled over, and then there was chatter on use tax even if its a Montana Vehicle. yes Louisiana is a bit bent... However, Its just as likely they won't care? I didn't see too many Montana plates during my drive throughs.
 
Ignoring everything else and all the people saying it can be done or not done, the reality is that it's different in every state and depends on how good the legislature is at writing laws to block this.

The LA supreme court ruling is here: https://www.49dollarmontanaregisteredagent.com/webForms/montana-rv-llc-louisiana-ruling.pdf

Read this carefully. The case was that the LA DOR could not pierce the veil of the LLC and assess the LLC owner the sales tax directly.
However, this does not say that the LLC did not owe sales tax. In fact, it specifically says that LA law makes it clear the LLC owes sales tax.

Oh, you also have to be super careful to form the LLC BEFORE any dealings with the dealer. Any payments made personally can void the LLC, which almost happened here. It was only the failure of the LA DOR to bring this up in their argument that saved the taxpayer.

So it appears that if you buy a vehicle in LA, always communicate with Tesla as the LLC, buy the car with money from the LLC, and somehow convince Tesla to not charge you sales tax when the vehicle is delivered.... Then the LLC can own that car without having paid sales tax, but with it being owed by the LLC. So now LA can put a lien on that car. Because the LCC DOES have assets...

Oh, and be sure the LA legislature hasn't updated rules since then, since that was a 2014 ruling, and as the ruling says, this was really a case for the legislature and it would be trivial for the legislature to fix this. Many states have simple rules such as if you keep the car in the state for more than 90 days, you have to register it (and this includes the LLC registering it)
 
I’ve done nothing of the sort. Transportation in whatever form is a basic need. It’s generally required to get to and from a job to satisfy all manner of other basic needs. As I said in my original post, your hard-line approach to this doesn’t change if we’re talking Fiesta vs F40.


I’ll go ahead and leave it here - this remains a fantastically privileged and out of touch opinion that simply doesn’t acknowledge the reality of the world that most people in the US live in and fight against. Blaming them instead of the myriad systems set up to fleece them is not something I’m willing to get on board with. Reliable personal transportation is not an option for most Americans. Nor is not having it until you’ve saved enough money to pay cash when transportation is essential to almost every method of earning said cash. Are there plenty of “ballers on a budget” making self-inflicted bad financial decisions? Of course. Can we use that as an excuse for hard-line rules that don’t acknowledge reality? IMO no.


Acknowledged and accepted. 👍🏻 My apologies.
So, let's simplify this because you're injecting an awful lot of emotion and feelings into a very basic topic to make yourself seem like some sort of champion for the people protecting those who can't protect themselves. "Pay the teachers" "save the wales" "Support our Troops" "Stop hate" and all of that feel-good talk though props up what is otherwise an empty message, if you sift through the fluff.

Your stance is that someone MUST finance a $1,500 car, call it Fiesta... y'know... for basic transportation which is as necessary for living as drawing your next breath.
 
Your stance is that someone MUST finance a $1,500 car, call it Fiesta... y'know... for basic transportation which is as necessary for living as drawing your next breath.
My stance is that yes, such a scenario clearly exists and the availability of financing for a purchase can be the difference between maintaining your job and livelihood or losing it.

This is why hard-line absolute rules are rarely of value beyond being an echo chamber for one’s own deeply held beliefs.
 
Maybe there is some sort of non owned auto coverage, maybe, but only a licensed insurance person in the appropriate state can answer. I believe I am correct - but most posters do 😁

Llc owned is in no way going to be properly coverd by a personal policy. Take a ride share and ask the driver how they are insured. There has to be some business use of the llc owned auto or the veil is broken, and the llc out of state is broken on its face too.
I am not a lawyer nor insurance agent/broker. But I believe your ride share angle is not relevant. In the case of a ride share, the vehicle is being used for commerce. It is literally a "commercial vehicle" and the driver is operating the vehicle in order to make money for the owner of the vehicle.

In the OP's case, the vehicle is not being operated in order to make money for the LLC. Therefore I think the liability would fall to the driver and not the owner of the vehicle. IMO it's no different than when you rent a car. Even though the car is owner by the rental car company, you (and your insurance) are responsible if you wreck the car or crash into someone or something else.
3:12 "Louisiana had a rulling where it was deemed not tax evastion but tax avoidance"

😍

So we are good???
That just means that if you get caught you won't go to jail but you will still have to pay the LA taxes, fees, and penalties.