No Sales Tax "time-share" ?

No Sales Tax "time-share" ?

I have heard of people time-sharing expensive boats, cars, condos does any one have expert knowledge/experience with this for DMV in CA? Living in CA but having family in Seattle, I'm wondering how to legally "time share" a Performance Sig registered and delivered to the co-owner (40-51%?) in WA (no sales tax saves 10K). Is this legal? Also, how would insurance work? I'm OK with the financial and emotional implications (what if the other guy damages the car, who pays for what, etc).

Brian H | 28. tammikuu 2012

It might have to be registered to one person, with a "side agreement" contract with the other.

Crow | 28. tammikuu 2012

I haven't done it but I know of families that own fractional shares in a vacation home. Usually they use an LLC to own the property with an agreement that spells out terms of ownership. You can have as many owners of the LLC as you want.

jbunn | 31. tammikuu 2012

Back when I was a kid 30 years ago fueling light aircraft at a local airport, I used to hear the owners discussing the leaseback arrangements they had.

Mycroft | 31. tammikuu 2012

Agree with Kroneal. The only way to do it would be to create some kind of corporation that would own the car. See a lawyer.

Mycroft | 31. tammikuu 2012

Yep, road rage, DUI, you caused the damage - no you did, etc. etc. I wouldn't touch something like this with a 10 ft pole!

ride525 | 31. tammikuu 2012

"Living in CA", I think this means the car should be registered in CA, where you live. Sounds like you visit family in Washington state.

Going to "co-own" with them in WA? I would think that the "owner" where the car was used the most would be where it should be registered.

What do you think? Shouldn't CA residents pay sales tax for cars they use in CA?

brianman | 31. tammikuu 2012

Suppose I someone lives (residence) in state A, commutes from A thru B to C with most of the travel within B (car use), and works in C (employment).

Where should he/she register? Where should he/she pay for road repair?


JoeFee | 31. tammikuu 2012


As I said in the post, I want this legal and the WA owner could be up to 51%, if needed.

Mycroft | 31. tammikuu 2012

I'll say again, this is a question for a lawyer. Especially one that is familiar with California's draconian auto registration rules.

Brian H | 01. helmikuu 2012

Well, with traffic like this ...

phb | 01. helmikuu 2012

That picture makes my skin crawl. Just looking at it makes me want to GET OUT!

JoeFee | 01. helmikuu 2012

The freeways are bad but this why we stay:

Thanks for all the helpful comments.


Timo | 02. helmikuu 2012

That's a picture which made me make a question a while a back about oxygen levels on the street level in a busy freeway. Each of those cars are sucking oxygen in at quite high rate and replacing it with mainly CO2. I wonder if some of the "road rage" cases have actually been caused by mild case of oxygen deprivation or CO2 poisoning.

BEV:s would not only make those places more silent, but I imagine a lot more "pure", like walking in a forest instead of smelling exhaust fumes of cars around you.

mcornwell | 02. helmikuu 2012

joefiorelli@gma... that's why I live here in San Diego.

Brian H | 02. helmikuu 2012

There is no such thing as "CO2 poisoning" at levels less than hundreds of times ambient. (CO poisoning, however, is another matter.) CO2 can suffocate you, but that's mainly an oxygen-deprivation problem; N2 would do the same if it displaced O2.

Anyone take a look at the context-menu info on that pic? Heh. It's actually from Bejing! Judging from the spacing of the cars, it doesn't look like they're travelling more than 10 or 20 mph.


Timo | 03. helmikuu 2012

Depends of the definition of poisoning.

That "hundreds of times ambient" is not something that is complete impossibility when you are driving in a place like that. Natural CO2 levels are very low, but in highway where O2 is being converted to CO2 in massive scale that might happen. Or not. I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Nobody seems to know the answer.

OTOH people react to CO2 levels by breathing more. Oddly enough human brain does not register oxygen levels, but carbon dioxide levels and makes decisions based on that. Because of that suffocation is unlikely unless levels raise really high

Carbon monoxide doesn't get registered at all, so when you stop getting oxygen because CO is replacing it in the blood strem and don't produce CO2 your natural reaction to suffocation doesn't trigger. You might pass out without realizing that something is wrong, you just get sleepy and then you die. Sneaky gas.

JoeFee | 10. toukokuu 2012

Forget the car timeshare above, .... did not work out :(

Brian H | 10. toukokuu 2012

divilish details again? I can see how they might spiral into impossible territory pretty fast.

brianman | 10. toukokuu 2012


Brian H | 10. toukokuu 2012

My misspelluns is delibrat. (Sound effects, etc.) Divil take yez! >;)

brianman | 10. toukokuu 2012

Ok, then on behalf of the forum: everyone elses posts are also deliberate in their spelling. Maybe you can save yourself a ton of posting now. :)