Submitted by bostonshopper t3_1201rta in boston
Reply to comment by Brighteyed77 in Sorry for the million posts! The RMV has postponed my license suspension for 60 days while they "investigate." Thanks u/SchminksMcGee for suggesting contacting the local news, it's working! And they're digging into the craziness of anyone who drives in MA for 30 days being required to dual-register. by bostonshopper
The RMV has a specific clause around being in Massachusetts for 30 days.
Nonresidents Registering in Massachusetts
Even a nonresident (anyone whose legal residence is outside the Commonwealth) may be required to register and/or insure a motor vehicle or trailer in Massachusetts in certain situations. Following are some examples:
• Nonresidents whose primary residences are in other states may not operate motor vehicles ... in Massachusetts for more than 30 total days in one year unless they have liability insurance
https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-6-owning-a-vehicle/download
"having liability insurance" is a far cry from "you have to register your car here" though. If that were the case, why isn't everyone who lives in NH and drives to Massachusetts for work required to get Mass plates?
>having liability insurance"
Could this be a rule since NH doesn't require Insurance?
That is exactly why this rule is in place, i'm not sure what it has to do with the requirement to register the car in Massachusetts though that the RMV appears to see in this legislation
So literally everyone who works in MA from out of state has to dual-register in order to go to their job. This is asinine.
That's the price the free-staters pay for complaining about oppressive taxachusetts while reaping the benefits of our infrastructure and economy.
That's so dumb. A car should only have to be registered in a single state. Tie it to someone's official residence, or maybe whichever state the car is operated in the most.
The reason it is like this is because someone would claim residence in some other state that doesn’t have taxes on cars and register their car there. They could have a friend in Alabama, claim it’s their home state, but live in MA 364 days a year, and skirt the law. So they made a law to force these people to register it here, since they are using the roads, etc. The idea behind it is solid, but of course there are situations like OP’s who get caught up even though they never really lived here, they just visited. This is why the cases need to be looked at when they pop up, and not just blindly apply the law. Common sense needs to be used, but that’s of course lacking in many offices.
How would that be a problem with my proposed rules? In your example the owner of the car resides in MA and the car spends the majority of its time in MA.
Edit: I'm not saying that it would solve people lying about which state their car should be in. I'm just saying it would be more fair and it would solve this ridiculous 30 day issue.
That’s exactly what the rule/law is supposed to do. But MA law says 30 days rather than a majority, because they have to set the limit somewhere, and people will always try to get around it on a technicality. “Well the car was here for 181 days, so that’s not a majority, so I register it in the other state.”
Of course it’s also that MA wants their cut of taxes too when someone is living here for a good part of the year, and it makes sense.
If the car is truly in this state for less than half the year (even 1 day less) and your official residence is in another state I'm fine giving up all the tax revenue.
And for those willing to lie to get around it, they'd also be giving up their right to vote in this state and anything else tied to residence.
What if their residence is officially MA for taxes but they move their car to another state for 184 days of the year because it’s a $250k car and they are just avoiding the excise tax? Then they bring their other $300k car here for 181 days, and just go on vacation somewhere else for the few days they don’t have a car here?
The 30 day limit is to make it very difficult to do this to get around paying your fair share. Don’t believe that people with money wouldn’t do this either. They would claim they shouldn’t have to register it here, even if they live here because the car isn’t here most of the time. They have nice cars that use the roads, but register the car in a state with low/no taxes.
Then the other states get to claim the cars for 100% of whatever taxes they charge.
If those states don't charge excise taxes and yet somehow maintain their roads just fine, maybe we should be looking into how those states are able to do so.
They charge other taxes, or they are southern states that don’t get all the winter damage we get.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments