Colin Gentle (Sr.) sent me the e-mail below and I thought it was worthy of being posted more widely. Thanks Colin!

Hi Ross,
I received this information this evening from a friend regarding the State of Ct leaning on the vintage car hobby. Looks like something the membership of CTZCC might be interested in, we already have a lot of early cars that would be affected and others that will soon be in the same situation. I thought you or Frank might want to take a look at this information and post on the club website if you think that would be appropriate.
Colin
the older one

First a link to SEMA Action Network. Second, attached a pdf copy of the bill. Third, below a summary of the issue from the CT Council of Car Clubs:

http://echo.bluehornet.com/hostedemail/ ... 0E95B66291


Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 5:56:53 PM
Subject: CT Council of Car Clubs Follow Up - Actual Challenge to the $500. Assessment

Summary of Issue:

A revised version of House Bill 5580 is attached. It is currently with the Legislative Commissioners Office and not yet available on the CT General Assembly Website. The bill proposes to increase the maximum assessed value of an antique car from $500 to $2500, and raises the age of an antique car from 20 to 30 years. While not good, it is a whole lot better than Representative Sharkey’s proposal to eliminate the maximum property tax assessed value completely.

[As an aside on the much more fun side – See the attached flyer for hobby related presentations at the Burlington High School Auditorium on Sunday April 3rd to benefit the proposed New England Auto Museum.]

Background and Detailed Discussion:

As you will recall from my previous E-mail earlier this month on this bill, a public hearing took place for House Bill 5580 on March 2nd. At that public hearing, the Democratic House Majority Leader Representative Brendan Sharkey proposed to eliminate the maximum $500. property tax assessment on antique cars. In part, Representative Sharkey’s testimony stated:

“That means that the owner of a classic vehicle worth tens of thousands of dollars is assessed at the same rate as someone with a car worth $500. And while we used to apply severe restrictions on how many miles the car with an “antique” designation could be driven in a year, we have long since abandoned those standards so that anyone with an older so that anyone with an older, expensive car can literally drive away with a huge tax break at the expense of the rest of the taxpaying public. We’re still waiting for OFA [Office of Fiscal Analysis] to cost out the revenue to be collected from this basic change, but I am confident it will provide sufficient revenue to create the phase-in compensation fund while also closing a loophole that has cost our towns and cities major revenue over the years.”

As a follow up to my previous E-mails on this subject, we assembled a group of Hamden auto hobbyists, (George and Bob Civitelli, and Jack Kennelly of the Connecticut Classic Chevy Club, Charlie Gunn of the Connecticut Early Ford V-8 Club, Fred Klaus of the Connecticut Area Classic T-Bird Club, Dave Richards of the Southern New England Region of the Vintage Chevrolet Club of America, and Dave Bajumpaa) and met with Representative Sharkey at his office at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on March 17. At that meeting, we provided our position as to why the maximum $500 assessment was fair. We also indicated that we did not have an issue with the increase in the age of an antique car from 20 to 25 years. We also provided our thoughts on how difficult it would be to come up with a fair market value on antique cars. Rep. Sharkey seemed to agree that it would be difficult to come up with a fair market value on antique cars. He did correctly state that the $500. assessment dates back to the 1970’s, and his opinion is that the $500 assessment should be raised to some higher value. While we did agree we saw his point, we did indicate that we did not think changes to the assessment were necessary, considering the benefits that hobby provided to charities, businesses, and the community.

Late in the day on March 24, I received a new version of House Bill 5580 (the joint favorable substitute version). The bill is filed with the Legislative Commissioners Office and is not yet available on the website. (It is attached to this E-mail.) This revised bill increases the age of an antique car from 20 to 30 years (an increase from the 25 years that the committee bill proposed), and increased the maximum property tax assessment on an antique car from $500 to $2500.

Here are my thoughts as to what Representative Sharkey and others on the Planning and Development Committee were thinking in proposing these two changes: The maximum $500 assessment was established in 1973 via Public Act 73-571, and has not increased in the last 37 years. If you go to any website that adjusts for inflation based on the consumer price index, $500 in 1973 dollars is equivalent to $2500 in 2011 dollars. Regarding the increase from 20 to 30 years, I believe the thinking is that the quality and longevity of vehicles have increased substantially over the years, and that the population of 20 to 30 year old cars is significantly higher than it was in the 1970’s. Because of this, too many cars are considered antique cars. Frankly, there is some validity to both these points.

Apparently our meeting with Representative Sharkey was a success in that it does not contain his proposal to entirely eliminate the maximum property tax assessment “loophole”, which is a good thing.

Where do we go from here on House Bill 5580?

That is a very good question. First, we need to decide as an organization whether we want to fight the $2500 assessment and the 30 year antique car classification, or accept the proposed changes. If we choose to oppose the legislation, we need to determine what our position is and what our basis will be to defend it. Would we look to keep the current $500 assessment, or propose an alternate compromise maximum assessed value to respond to the question that the maximum assessed value has not changed since 1973? We would also need to decide what year cutoff for an antique car is appropriate, 20 years, 25 years, or 30 years?

If we choose to oppose the legislation, I think we need to tread lightly here. I did have a conversation with our legislative monitor on this. He recommended against having all the auto hobbyists in the state contact their State Senators and Representatives, since depending upon our tone, and the legislators own opinion, we could create a negative backlash against the hobby and generate amendments to House Bill 5580 that eliminate the maximum property tax assessment benefit entirely. (A legislator with a bias against us may consider us to be too greedy in these difficult financial times.) An alternative approach that appears to makes sense, may be to attempt to defeat this in the Senate. To accomplish this so we would need to establish groups (4 to 6 savvy hobbyists) to meet with their State Senators. We already have groups that have been assembled to meet with Senators Cassano and Fasano as part of our earlier efforts. If you have a relationship with your State Senator and would like to volunteer to be part of the group setting up a meeting with your Senator on the issue let me know.

I recommend we discuss this issue further at the upcoming 4C’s meeting on April 4th at Tommy’s Restaurant in Middletown (Dinner at 7:00, Meeting at 8:00). Alternatively, you can provide me feedback via E-mail. If you don’t normally attend the 4C’s Business Meetings and are planning on attending, please let me know so I can provide an accurate head count to the restaurant.

Talking Points: Why the $500 Tax Assessment is Appropriate – Need Revision to Oppose increase to $2500 for Antique Cars:

These updated talking points defended the elimination of the maximum tax benefit. They would need to be worked on to oppose an increase in the maximum assessed value to $2500.

- The vast majority of the automobile hobbyists in this state have other motor vehicles they use as primary transportation that are subject to the same property taxes as everyone else in the state. Because of this, the automobile hobbyists are already paying their fair share of property taxes on motor vehicles.

- Unlike many other hobbies, the automobile hobby requires us to register our collector motor vehicles, which puts them on a list, making them visible to the local property tax assessors in cities and towns. Hobbyists that collect artwork, furniture, stamps, coins, or rare books cannot be easily tracked identified by these same local property tax assessors. Elimination of the $500 maximum assessment would unfairly put the automobile hobbyists in a situation where the tax burden associated with their hobby would be excessive, as compared to other hobbies. (Elimination of the $500 property tax assessment would increase the grand list of a municipality, slightly lowering the overall mil rate, but unfairly shifting the burden to the automotive hobbyist. This is the wrong way for a municipality to grow the grand list. It is not the same as attracting new businesses and industries to a municipality.) – This may be a bit of a challenge here since Governor Malloy’s budget proposes a 20 mil tax on aircraft and boats to be imposed at the municipal level starting in 2013.

- Unfairly shifting the property tax burden to the automotive hobbyists will adversely impact the hobby. The vast majority of automotive hobbyists are low to middle income taxpayers with limited resources. Shifting the tax burden to the hobbyist will result in taxpayers on limited incomes from having to resort to selling there hobby car(s).

- Considering the benefits the automobile hobbyist provides to the community that many other hobbies don’t provide provides additional justification for why it is unfair to shift the tax burden to the automotive hobbyist: There are several car shows each weekend in the state throughout the late spring, summer, and early fall. These car shows typically benefit local charities and organizations. These shows result in significant revenues to these charities and organizations. These shows and cruise nights also result in increased spending at restaurants and local business throughout the state, indirectly helping increase state revenues. Also, the use of their collector vehicles in local parades and other town functions throughout the state provide a positive benefit to the community thanks to the automotive hobbyist.

- The state has made significant investments in attracting the movie industry to Connecticut. Having a large population of antique cars available to support this industry is helpful. Elimination of the $500 assessment will adversely affect this population.

- Antique motor vehicles are driven very limited miles each year. The vast majority of antique cars are stored and not driven for during the winter months. While the statutes have eliminated restrictions on antiques vehicle use many years ago, antique automotive insurance policies requires limited vehicle use. Typically, an antique cars usage is limited to travel to automotive shows and cruises, town events, and occasional pleasure use.

- Coming up with a fair standard to assess the value of antique cars will be a significant burden to the assessor. Condition, desirability, and the extent of modifications to an antique car are large factors in the value of that vehicle. Because of this creating a standard value to an antique vehicle is extremely difficult. The burden to the assessor to come with a fair market value for these cars will likely not justify the modest increase in the grand list (and the unfair shifting of the tax burden to the hobbyist).

_________________
Ross Williams
1978 280Z Black Pearl Edition 38k Original Miles

In my honest opinion, it seems like a pretty fair measure. The only thing I might quibble with is the 10-year jump. I think a 5-year jump might be more appropriate.

_________________
Isaac - Groton, CT

yeah but why is it needed to do that? my friend will get hit by this because his 87 Camaro will be put back to normal plates and taxed as a normal daily driver? i don't mind the jump because i am still over 30yrs but i do think 10yrs is a big jump. and 500 to 2500?? come on

_________________
Mike Tubiak
1978 Datsun 280Z - HLS30-438694

Isaac, you're already starting to think like one of those lawyer-dudes, and you don't even have your Juris Doctorate yet.

_________________
1970 240Z

Haha, it just seems to me that accounting for inflation is a pretty reasonable measure.

And how much is a 1987 Camaro worth anyways, Mike?

It's not like it's a Z or anything.

_________________
Isaac - Groton, CT

Yes Frank, but he's 'proudly studying to go down and contribute to the mess'

I don't live in CT any more; here in NY (as in most states), cars are not taxed at all. In my opinion, ANY form of property tax is unfair. People should be taxed according to how much they earn, not what they buy with it. I built my own house and got SCREWED for it. I couldn't have afforded to buy that house, but they taxed me for it like I was making enough to buy it!
If you want to make local property taxes fair, then you should assess households according to how many school-age children they have, not the value of the houses and cars that they build for themselves!

_________________
71 on a rotisserie, two more in pieces in my shed...and a 69 1600 waiting for me to get to it

Well Isaac it's a fully loaded 87 IROC-Z so when done they go for well over 10k. Like the early Z's they didn't make many IROC's.

_________________
Mike Tubiak
1978 Datsun 280Z - HLS30-438694

You're kidding right? They made THOUSANDS of early Z's. They've just all been eaten by negligent driving and iron oxide.


"Best selling sports car of ALL TIME"

_________________


-Chris

Well what I was thinking of the 69-70 Z cars. And of course they would have sold more but they just couldn't keep up with the demand. Well we all know the S30 is one of the sweetest body styles ever!!

_________________
Mike Tubiak
1978 Datsun 280Z - HLS30-438694

I was just kidding about it, Mike. And I don't know that a $10000 car, if that's the value the State gives it, would actually incur more than a $500 bill. I think the State says my car's worth $17000 (not with my mileage, darnit), and I get hit with something like $350/year, at most.

The people who get hit hardest by this are probably going to be the guys running around with a fully-restored Auburn, or a younger antique that was much more expensive to begin with. And even then, the cap is still set at $2500. Not everybody's going to hit it.

_________________
Isaac - Groton, CT

I know Isaac and that works for me then. So I guess if you can afford to own one of these cars you shouldn't have a problem paying the increased taxes on it.

_________________
Mike Tubiak
1978 Datsun 280Z - HLS30-438694

I'm just fed-up with our whole tax system.

You get taxed at work ~ it comes right out of your paycheck and goes to the government before they even hand you the money you earned.
You get taxed on every single purchase you make with your money.
AND you get taxed annually on the stuff you ALREADY BOUGHT with your money.

So If I buy a car, my money gets taxed at work before I receive it, then I pay sales tax on the car when I buy it, then I get taxed annually for the same car as long as I keep it.

No wonder they call America the richest country on earth ~ but they're talking about the COUNTRY, not the citizens.

Sounds like something Michael Moore should make a movie about.

Frank

_________________
1970 240Z

Well, I'm glad YOU do, because I don't think it's a fair measure AT ALL!!!
Leave it to the liberal democraps to even think up such a thing!!! What's
"Lucky 13" worth, $500 for a nice, unrestored, 100,000 mile, 41-year-old
used car, or half-a-mil for being the first of her kind? And who's going
to make those decisions, some arrogant politician or local tax assessor
who doesn't have the slightest clue?

Makes me feel like the world's biggest jerk for ever moving up here from
Texas. Between the high prices you pay for everything, the rotten winter
weather, and getting your behind taxed off at every conceivable level, I
admit to being a real oaf for accepting a job transfer. I would have been
money ahead if I would have stayed where I was, taken the lower (hence
less taxable) income, and enjoyed the lower prices, lower sales tax rate,
no state income tax, and virtually year-round warm weather. I can
easily understand why many of my friends and colleagues move South
when they retire. Also, why corporations move OUT and not IN.

I would also be tempted to not register ANY of the cars, but to "bootleg"
the plates from the Pathfinder or Honda onto one of the "oldies" if I felt
like going for a ride.

And we're "BLESSED" (HA!!) to have one of the WORST for a State Sen-
ator, Ed Meyer, a retired NYC lawyer who moved up to CT to become a
politician. He had to choose OUR district to reside in, of all the places.
Oh, well, at least we have one of the BEST State Representatives, Vinny
Candelora. I'll have to refresh on which committees he serves on......
I think at least one has to do with finances.....

Colin and Ross, count me in if you think I might be of some value........

All Z Best,.....................Rick (and Kathy, of course)

_________________
All Z Best,.......Kathy & Rick

1969 Z.CAR (#00013 10/69) 8/30/76
1969 ITSA.Z (#00171 11/69) 8/24/73
1970 OLD.Z (#06289 6/70) original owner
1971 510 2dr since 12/31/75
1969 1600 rdstr (our 160-Z)
1971 (#19851 1/71) sold
1975 75.Z (#01343 1/75)

If I accept the inflation argument, then I want an offsetting depreciation
figure.
~Rick~