By in Rhode Island’s Future
Poster child for the unfairness of car tax valuations: Charletown Town Council Boss Tom Gentz behind the wheel of one of THREE vintage Porsche convertibles. Assessed tax value: ZERO |
Like the weather, it appears that everybody in Rhode Island
loves to talk about the state’s car tax but nobody ends up actually doing
anything about it. The Vehicle Value Commission has the power to do something
about it, and bears responsibility for the frustration and, sometimes, anger
that taxpayers in the state have about it.
For years, the ACLU of Rhode Island has submitted testimony to the
Commission to encourage revisions to these regulations in order to address that
frustration and bring some semblance of fairness to the valuation process.
No
revisions have ensued, unfortunately. Despite our lack of optimism that this
year will be any different, we offer our views once again.”
Click to enlarge. Gentz's actual tax bill from the Charlestown Tax Assessor database. Note - Gentz' veterans exemptions are applied to his property taxes. |
So begins the ACLU of
Rhode Island’s detailed seven-page testimony to the Rhode Island Vehicle Value Commission submitted in
advance of a public hearing on the Commission regulations on November 10th. The testimony includes a thorough review of
the car tax statute and regulation’s history.
That is because the
regulations establish the value of used cars up to 17 years old by relying
solely on the National Automobile Dealers Association’s
(NADA) designated “clean retail value” of the car based
on its make and model. Such a presumption, claims the ACLU testimony, “defies
reality.”
The ACLU of Rhode
Island has long called on the R.I. Vehicle Value Commission to stop using this
unrealistic vehicle valuation to determine car taxes and to also adopt a
meaningful appeals process for Rhode Island car owners, and this year’s
testimony does the same.
Not only do Rhode
Island drivers face heavy taxes that do not match the true value of their
vehicles, they are also denied any meaningful appeal process to have their
vehicles recognized fairly.
The Commission’s
consideration of appeals of its “presumptive value” consists solely of checking
for clerical errors, allowing adjustments to be made only when an incorrect
NADA car value was inadvertently imposed, not when the taxpayer challenges the
NADA figure itself based on, for example, local selling conditions.
In its written
testimony, the ACLU said: “Such cold efficiency, which essentially rewrites the
word ‘presumptive’ out of the statute, is a disservice to the taxpayers and to
basic principles of due process.”
The testimony continued: “[W]e leave it to
the Commission members and others to suggest alternative methods of
establishing a ‘presumptive value’ for motor vehicles; all that we can say is
that something more meaningful than the current procedure is essential in order
to add some fairness to the methodology.”
The ACLU noted that
the Commission could consider using local retail sales prices to set vehicle
values, break down car models into categories by years, or consider other
factors. As it has done at past hearings, the ACLU also called on the
Commission to establish a meaningful appeals process.
A copy of the ACLU’s
testimony is available here.