Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Any Questions for a Car Dealer?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I talked to my friend last night about this and he said that he DID'T do it because the dealer didn't want to. I remember when he made this transaction and he told this BIG story on how it took place. He ended up getting a little more for his car to off-set the taxes on the new one.
So, this updated information and .25 cents will get you absolutely nothing! LOL
Mark
You said, " ...you don't understand simple logic like action "a" is bad for business and people don't want to do it"
As it appears you didn't absorb my previous couple of posts, I'll clarify. I believe I clearly stated my acceptance of the premise, as put forth by the sales experts here, that there might be no monetary reason to do any type of in-and-out transaction. And what other reason could their possibly be?... oops, there's that logic thing again.
You might want to refer to the post where I stated, "You guys say there is no upside. Fair enough. You know your business better then I do.", followed by "If all things considered, you still choose not to do it, whether it's due to extra paperwork hassle, or too mini of a deal... that's cool.". Hopefully, this clears things up for you.
The in and out issue? It's not only illegal in states that offer tax credit on trades, it's bad business for the dealer for other reasons, as well.
That 6200 mile car is already written down by their accounting department - probably $3-4K.
If you want to sell your used car to a friend for less than market value, go for it. Why drag the dealer into it? Oh, that's right, so you can save money on sales tax -- in those cases where you happen to live in a state where the tax benefit is available! And how many states would that be?
I guess I've never lived in a state that offers the tax benefits of trading in cars (or, I've been too naive to notice that it was being done). In the past, I've done both --- sold privately before buying and traded in.
Bottom line -- the horse is dead. Quit beating it.
About three weeks later, the dealer called me back and made me an offer that I couldn't refuse--he offered me about $1,000 more than I reasonably expected for my trade and gave me a great price on the new car--I couldn't believe it! Naturally, I ran down to the dealer and bought the car. In fact, I got there sooner than the dealer expected and he hadn't had time to add the window tint. So, he gave me the new car and promised to do the tint the following day.
When I arrived the next afternoon, I looked around the lot but didn't see my old car--it had already been sold. So, I asked the salesman what happened to it. I couldn't believe what he told me...Apparently, my EX-girlfriend had called the salesman to inquire whether I had traded in my Mazda. He advised her that we hadn't reached a deal "yet". She told the dealer that she would buy my Mazda from him if I eventually traded it in. Apparently, she was so pissed about our break-up (it was ugly) that she was willing to pay the dealer more for the car than she would have had to pay me. (Did I mention it was an ugly break-up?)
Anyway, I ended up getting a great deal on the car I really wanted while she paid about $2000 more than she should have. Talk about "cutting off your nose to spite your face"! It's bad enough she was going to be driving around in her ex-boyfriend's old car, but to pay a $2000 premium for the privilege is insane!
That's just strange.
Hell hath no loopiness like a woman scorned I suppose.
Huh?
But all the guys who're in the business say it's illegal.
So I'm guessing it depends on what's in the dealer's mind at the time of the sale -- that's not a ridiculous concept, that's the law in many cases. Shoot a corpse you THINK is alive and it's murder, at least as far as I know.
The reason I believe "it's illegal" is because I believe the guys who're saying it. Not because I really understand it. It has very little to do with logic and engineering degrees and all that. So please don't go saying "you don't understand 'cuz you're not in the business". That's just silly. Dick Feynman once said "What one fool can do, another fool can do." And he meant it, even though he was talking about quantum electrodynamics at the time (which I CAN'T do). So if you 'splain it right to us, we amateurs will likely get it.
It's probably also a little like why I will do anything to avoid an audit.. my wife is an antiques dealer with so much merchandise going through, that if we ever get audited, we'll likely come out ahead.. but we'll work for a month just to get things in order. ANYTHING but that.
If I were a dealer, I certainly would not do a pass-thru. Why get in the middle of a deal with a car you want nothing to do with? All the hassle and responsibility, no or little profit? No thanks.
As far as "illegal", "shady", "immoral".. I dunno guys. Ever use a home equity loan to pay for a car and then deduct income tax? I have. Not what the law was meant for... but is it illegal? shady? immoral? If it is, what about a cash-out refi? Now is it OK...? I see a lot of grey in all this.
Peace!
-Mathias
The car gets taken in from you as the buyer of the new car and trader of the used car. The used car goes through the shop and gets put on the line. Joe Smith comes along and buys it and gets charged $XXXX for it and pays $XXX in state sales tax. Done.
The other way, the dealer misleads the state into think the same transaction happened, except it didn't. A decent auditor would see right through it.
So what matters is indeed what's in the dealer's mind at the time. Fair enough.
Thanks -M
Just my .02 :-)
Duncan
More and more, this isn't the case. It seems most stores are owned by large groups.
I know the dealer group they own here still has the family running it and there isn't a mention of Group 1 anywhere on their website.
Still, I like it the way we have it here.
--> AutoNation (under John Elway brand name)
--> Burt (largest Hispanic owned company in the country, IIRC)
--> Lithia
--> Phil Long (dealerships in Denver and Co. Spgs.)
There are a few that own 2-4 different dealerships in the area, too.
I guess some people feel that a family owned dealership gives them the opportunity to shake hands with the owner over coffee at the local diner and that somehow makes it a better place to do business.
The dealer may give the impression of being local owned but they could be part of Giganto Corp. It's all in how the business is run.
sueradu2 "Honda Pilot: Prices Paid & Buying Experience" Oct 30, 2003 7:09am
Just a point of interest; please don't relive every last nuance and get KC and Car_man mad at me for bringing it up :-)
Steve, not the Host here
I can't argue with certainty, but my understanding (and the opinion of a lawyer colleague) is that absent a law against presales for a dealership, a pass-through as described here would likely be legal but arguably unethical. As long as the procedure was valid and consistent with the trade-in sales tax waiver, the deduction is allowable without regard to whether or not the car is going to be immediately resold to a party that the dealer didn't bring in through normal sales channels.
Various state revenue boards can, and have, argued in favor of collection, but have rarely been upheld when challenged in court. The distinction is actually exactly what some people have mentioned, tax avoidance versus evasion, and the courts have judged that if the procedure is consistent with the law, the transaction is an allowable shelter.
Having said that, I can't imagine why a dealer would be silly enough to do one of these transactions. As many people have said, the transaction turns the dealer into a principal in the transaction, and unless he gets compensated for assuming the risk (both liability and audit - the state can demand the money after all, even if they're unlikely to get it if taken to court), it just doesn't make sense to me. If the pot is big enough, maybe there's room for everyone involved to end up ahead, but int he "average" case we seem to be talking about, I'd think it's better just to say no and let a less wise dealer take the risk.
Thanks for the analysis, Scip. You make perfect sense.
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/puzz12.html
For those who are still a little confused about the math and how the state would be defrauded on an in-and-out where the owner of the used car brings someone to buy it from the dealer, here's where the state loses:
1. Used car owner sells car A directly to friend for $10000. Friend pays 8 percent ($800) sales tax to state. Used car owner then buys new car from dealer for $24,000 using the $10K cash as down payment and pays $1920 to state in tax. Total collection for state = $2720.
2. Used car owner arranges in-and-out at dealer with same cars, same prices, same people. Friend still pays $800, but because of the "trade", the new car is only taxed on $14,000, and thus the state only gets $1120 for a net tax collection of $1920. State loses $800 in tax revenue with the in-and-out.
As the dealer professionals have stated, this will be picked up by a tax auditor because of the time-frame and parameters of the transactions. THAT is why it's tax fraud - as scipio1 mentions, not illegal to the letter of the law, but the fact that the dealership did not have time to re-title the car and did not change the price from the trade value, they would likely be required to prove this was not intent to defraud or to aid in fraud.
The illegality is the intent, not the actual transaction. Same as if, after a car accident, you continued to see a chiropractor long after treatment became ineffective so that the doctor could continue to collect the insurance payments. It's not illegal to see a doctor, but the intent to milk the insurance is illegal.
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and FWI Message Boards
They just don't collect $20K worth of tax each time.
It's the same with anything that's sold new or used, with some exceptions in some states for food and clothing items.
I wouldn't know what to do if cars where taxed, I've never paid tax on any car purchase. For the moment Alaska does not have a state sales tax, state income tax, and where I live we don't pay property tax.
Wow, starting to think its a good thing I live in Alaska.
robr2.......I don't go to the car lots much anymore, we drove through the Dodge dealer yesterday just to *look*, hubby wanted to take a peek at the new cummins. He's looking at next fall for buying one, we were in and out in a flash no salesman bothered us or anything.
I posted a real life example (post #6026) where my trade sold within hours of trade, and my trade was delivered to the new owner before I took delivery of my new car.
I asked the question in that post, "how does an auditor know this transaction is not an In/Out?" My question still stands.
You guys should just buy a brand new top-of-the-line diesel truck and keep it as long as you can before it starts needing too much work (maybe 10 yrs?). Buy at the end of the year, get the "big" discount, and drive that baby!
Mark
Still, people will argue with you in an attempt to find a loophole.
People underestimate the smarts and resources of a good tax auditor.
Once a business (or individual) has been singled out for game playing, the intense scrutiny will never end.
And...that's how it should be!
As for a new truck, not until next fall, we need to pay my Explorer off first.
The 2nd buyer buys the trade and pays taxes on the "selling" figure, in the meantime, the dealer get's the title either now, or after the pay-off from buyer #1, the title gets "flipped" over to the selling dealers name and at purchase, the 2nd buyer will get that title in his name and/or lender ...
I think where everyone is getting confused is .. if a dealer "allows" someone to bring their trade-in on the deal and then use it to offset the taxes ~ and then "allow" that buyer to take it home and sell it on his own ... if no taxes are being paid, then that's illegal .! - Period.! ... depending on the State, both the dealer and the "original" buyer are in for potential fraud AND Tax evasion, "avoidance" has nothing to do with it .l.o.l...
The reason why dealers don't do it is, as a rule (if there is one), the State would rather pursue the dealer, *it's a business* and it must *conform to all the tax laws in the State ~ the original customer can say - "Hey, I didn't know" "they told me it's done everyday" "I had no Idea, what would I know, I'm not in the business", etc, etc.com.
To answer your question, how will they know .?
Easy .. how many titles came in, and how many vehicles went out and what taxes were paid, takes them "oooh" about 15 minutes on a hand calculator ...
Terry.
Also, what is the name that "Alaskians" call the locals who have been there a while?
A friend of mine and her family run a B and B in Skagway..... another nice town.
Mark