This just doesn't seem right!
Is it supposed to be a deterent to people writing up a bil of sale for less
than the actual payment? (As they do here, sometimes.)
Laura G.
>
>From: "Stephen Hall" <shall@fastpointcom.com>
>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:53:57 -0400
>To: "Michael D. Nugent, Ph.D." <nugentmd@gte.net>, <spitfires@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: BIZARRE LAWS (all cars)
>
>
>Massachusetts does the same thing. I purchased my 1970 Spit for $600,
>but had to pay sales tax on $1300, the "official" value determined by
>the state. Go figure...
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael D. Nugent, Ph.D." <nugentmd@gte.net>
>To: <spitfires@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:41 PM
>Subject: Re: BIZARRE LAWS (all cars)
>
>
>>
>> The hot news here in Washington (the state) is that "use tax" (a
>form of sales
>> tax paid when you first transfer title of a car as the result of a
>sale) on
>> cars sold between private parties will no longer be based on what
>the actual
>> sales price was if that amount is below the value listed in the
>state-approved
>> "red book."
>>
>> For example, if you buy a used Spitfire for $1000 and the book lists
>it as
>> being worth $2500, your tax bill is based on the $2500. Creative,
>aren't we?!
>>
>> Mike
>> Renton, WA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|