For decades now, people who want to avoid paying taxes on their vehicles or want to keep their car on the road without a state safety or emissions inspection have turned to out-of-state registration. This process, which is illegal, allows owners to use loopholes in state vehicle registration laws to register and get plates for their cars, even if they don’t live in those states.
If you’re a gearhead, you probably know about the most popular version of this trick, commonly known as the “Montana loophole.” Anyone, no matter where they live, can form a Montana LLC and register cars to that LLC, without paying a lick of tax to their home state (they don’t pay any taxes to Montana, either, since Montana doesn’t charge sales tax on vehicle registrations).
Wealthy individuals have regularly been exploiting this loophole to avoid paying taxes on their extra-pricy exotics. It’s the reason you see so many fancy supercars with Montana plates in places like California. Those aren’t people visiting from Bozeman; they’re almost all Californians who are avoiding paying the state’s 7.5% sales tax and skirting strict emissions tests.
Up until recently, the people who use loopholes like this have faced virtually no consequences. But lately, states have been cracking down. Last year, Utah signed into law a new data-sharing arrangement between Utah and Montana “to locate and assess tens of thousands of Utah tax evaders, with a particular focus on the owners of cars and boats registered in Montana,” according to Bloomberg. Back in July, California’s tax agency identified over 1,500 vehicles that had potentially been improperly registered to Montana to avoid registration fees.
Now, seven months later, California is taking action. And it’s doing so in a big, seven-figure way.
A “Scheme To Avoid The Reporting Of $20 Million” In Purchases
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Friday that his office charged 14 people in a 56-count complaint that included conspiracy, filing false sales tax returns, failing to file tax returns, perjury, and money laundering. The state alleges these individuals failed to report $20 million in luxury vehicle purchases, including a BMW X7, a Porsche 911 GT2 RS, a Porsche 918 Spyder, a Lamborghini Urus, a Lamborghini Huracan, a McLaren 765LT, a Ferrari F12 TDF, and a Ferrari SF90, resulting in around $1.8 million in lost tax revenue.
According to the Attorney General’s office, the individuals have, since 2018, schemed “individually and together” to prepare and submit false DMV forms to suggest the vehicles were purchased for use outside of California, even though they were never shipped or driven outside of the state. The complaint itself contains quotes from several text messages between the defendants, one of which seems to depict a defendant admitting that they added “generic signatures” to one of the vehicle’s bill of lading.
Here’s what the AG had to say about all of this:
“When bad actors abuse legal loopholes and submit fraudulent documents to evade their obligations, the California Department of Justice will not stand idly by,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Every dollar of unpaid taxes is a dollar taken from California’s roads, schools, and the vital services our communities rely on. Schemes that defraud the government of millions in taxpayer money will not be tolerated. Today’s announcement should serve as a reminder: If you break the law and engage in fraud and theft, my office will hold you accountable.”
This should be a wake-up call for those who are currently rocking Montana plates on cars that shouldn’t have them. While this is certainly one of the higher-profile cases of tax evasion taken on by California, it certainly isn’t the first, nor will it be the last. According to DMV director Steve Gordon, the California DMV has recovered $2.3 million through 80 investigations of improper registration.
As I mentioned earlier, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration has a list of over 1,500 potentially fraudulent vehicles registered in Montana to look through. The cars above are just a small handful of that bunch. Something tells me they won’t stop there.
The same is true for people in Utah using the Montana scheme to skirt taxes. According to Bloomberg, supporters of the bill in that state say the data-sharing arrangement could yield up to $100 million in recovered taxes and penalties. That suggests officials are prepared to hand out more than just slaps on wrists.
The steps follow states like Iowa, Illinois, and Massachusetts, which, over the past decade, have cracked down on out-of-state registrations by residents using Montana LLCs. Most recently, Tennessee has very publicly cracked down on YouTuber Cody “WhistlinDiesel” Detwiler’s Montana registrations, arresting him twice.
My suggestion? If you’re legally able to, just register the damn car in your home state. Sure, it makes things cheaper in the short run, but over a long enough period of time, you’ll end up paying in one form or another. At least if you register your car properly to begin with, you won’t end up with a criminal record. For me, that feels a bit nicer than saving a few bucks in registration fees.
Top graphic image: DepositPhotos.com
I’ve always been curious–Even though I have no intention of doing it, is there anything preventing a Canadian from exploiting the Montana or (former) Vermont loopholes? I’d have to imagine more questions would be asked, but is that something people do?
I remember seeing a Nissan Frontier with Vermont plates on my street for several months–was never sure what was going on there
Was the Frontier in South Lake Tahoe? That might have been my brother, lol
Nah, it was in Canada
The answer is likely no, even given the differences in potential scenarios.
Register an LLC to bring in a US car, you still got to get it across the border. CBSA will want to know why a US company car is going into Canada driven by a Canadian.
Also, anything financed will raise alarms with the lending bank. Repos don’t happen cross-border.
Is that how it would work, though? Does the car actually have to be in Montana when you do it, or do you just get plates mailed to you?
If you did have to physically drive it up that might be tougher, and I don’t really know how it would work, but maybe they wouldn’t think twice if you were actually crossing from Montana?
Feels like a logistical nightmare. If you’re buying a car in Canada new, it would raise a Chinese Army’s worth of red flags. Used, unless you’re spending mid-six figures, I can’t see how it’s worth it.
You’d have to have insurance in Montana, in USD, as you couldn’t have a Canadian insurer cover a car “in another country” as it would be on paper. Heaven forbid you get a claim, and if it’s a new car, potential warranty issues.
Good. One of the rare cases where government cracks down on rich assholes exploiting loopholes.
Good. People that cheat the system like this are rich assholes. Some poor wage workers get to make up the difference so rich guys can “catch a break” on exotic toys. Anyone caught doing this should also probably be flagged for a forensic audit.
Who wants to bet these people complain about the quality of the roads, too?
Rich people being assholes.
If you don’t like the laws in California, then leave. If you are a wealthy 1%er who is so greedy you refuse to pay your share in taxes on your conspicuous luxury items, I hope California tracks you down.
I wonder how insurance works in a situation like this. The question on coverage is where the car is “garaged,” often meaning where it spend the majority of its time. This is Zip Code specific in many cases. If the car is registered in Montana, where is it insured? Montana? If so, do they claim it is garaged there? Then they are caught in a double bind legally, or so it seems. With an LLC, the story might be different. The AG in Cali should use this if possible.
There’s a ton of wealthy 1%ers I want to leave California. Property values in my neighborhood literally doubled due to wealthy remote workers moving in.
Show me one.
I’ll play devil’s advocate here and say this is a legal loophole. I’m sure many businesses do this with fleets. Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not. It isn’t illegal to have a business (LLC) in Montana, it isn’t illegal to have the business own and register the vehicle in that state, nor to drive in another state. But do the three together and it is illegal? Apparently as long as the car winds up in Montana once a year, it becomes okay. So the owner in CA just needs to vacation for a week in Montana annually and we move from criminal to upright citizen? These other states just don’t like that people are using a loophole that the government created.
If the car never goes to Montana it’s probably illegal. If the car is actually physically present for a time in MT, then it’s probably legally a lot grayer. Snap a few pictures of Bozeman with the car in them.
This was covered by The Autopian earlier this year: https://www.theautopian.com/heres-why-your-u-haul-truck-is-legally-registered-in-arizona-despite-not-being-in-arizona/
As a Californian, I can say that the state did it to itself. With the ever tightening emission standards ad no relief people started looking for an alternative, and it came on the form of Montana registration. Then people realized they can use this loophole to save money.
Exempt older cars from emissions or people will find a way.
My California ’89 MR2 Supercharged had its engine swapped last year. The unobtanium 4AGZE blew itself up and I could not source parts to repair or replace. I expect it would have taken more money and time than I have left in this world.
Installed a clean 2002 2GR and all of its smog-test adhering bits – including the ECU. I’m confident this engine is immensely cleaner than the one it replaced, but CA has no simple path forward for me. There are very few options that don’t require an out-of-state registration.
It sucks as this was my dream car since I graduated from college in ’89.
This just seems idiotic… To be clear, not your swap – the law.
If your car is functionally the same as the 2002 engine you swapped in, then you just need a referee inspection. After referee verification then you will smog it as a 2002 from then on out.
This. In California, you can swap in a more modern engine, as long as you keep all the stock emissions bits. It’s straight-forward.
Yup. Friend did a smog legal B16 CRX swap 20 years ago, they just told him make it look like a 94 Del Sol VTEC under the hood and he was good to go.
Yup, lots of information on the CA Bureau of Automotive Repair site. Engine swaps are not illegal here, you just need to adhere to the rules. New engine has to be from the same year as the car or newer, and all emissions equipment needs to be intact. You also have to take the engine from the same type of vehicle (i.e. if you have a car, the new engine has to have come from another car, not a light truck or SUV, and vice versa). Once the swap is complete you take the car to be inspected, they place a placard on the door jamb, and you’re off to smog. Should be good from there on out.
Anyone who lived in LA during the 70s and 80s knows exactly why CA emissions laws are as strict as they are. You could literally cut through the smog in downtown with a knife, there were days where we couldn’t go outside and play as kids, etc. It’s night and day different here since then.
Dunno if this helps but:
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/1977390626469382/?ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post&tracking=browse_serp%3Ad63f6dbe-902f-412d-a7fd-bce897067052
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/2021319461980928/?ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post&tracking=browse_serp%3Ad63f6dbe-902f-412d-a7fd-bce897067052
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/1208624298051827/?ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post&tracking=browse_serp%3Ad63f6dbe-902f-412d-a7fd-bce897067052
This is what I don’t get about CA smog laws-it’s never made sense to me that it’s not just a straight up tail pipe sniffer test and if you pass you’re good-which in your case you would be. In fact many older cars with modern engines swapped in would be getting cleaner.
It basically is. When it comes to swaps, it depends on how the engine is controlled. Many times people get out of hand with headers and eliminating exhaust emissions components. Partially because aftermarket controllers don’t control EGR and evap systems.
The factory OBD system monitors the engine control system and illuminates the MIL when the calculated level of emissions passes a predetermined threshold.
Components that are not functionally identical to factory cannot be considered a replacement part, and therefore require an Executive Order. Parts with EOs are exempted from the vehicle code sections that prohibit tampering because they have been verified that they do not degrade the effectiveness of the emission control system.
Parts without EOs have not gone through the verification process. They may not degrade the systems operation but again have not been verified and therefore that they do or don’t.
I do see your point re: evap and EGR emissions. But I guess that’s my point when it comes to the EO requirement, I don’t think the state should require pre-approval of aftermarket parts for them to pass emissions. If I can add headers, or a high-flow aftermarket cat to replace the aging one on my classic car and it meets tail pipe emissions requirements I can’t see a readily apparent reason why that should be effectively illegal.
These weren’t older cars avoiding California’s crazy smog laws ( I really hope Leno’s Law brings some sanity to this), these were newer smog legal cars that rich jerks were avoiding the taxes regular Californians like me and you have to pay. F them and I hope there add heavy fines on top.
F’ these tax avoiding pricks.
As I said, in my state anything over 25 yrs old is emissions exempt. Seems reasonable in the rust belt. Nobody is dailying a car with a carb anyomore.
Yeah, 25 year rolling exception is reasonable, and that is all classic car owners are asking. Instead we get a 1976 hard date.
Tightening emission standards don’t really cause Ferrari owners to need the relief of removing catalytic converters and running race fuel. I’ve seen regular not rich people registering in AZ or Nevada, but a registration from a state that is not adjacent on an exotic is not likely to have road tripped here.
Just think, if they could make their money outside of CA, then why are they here full time?
If they want to have Montana tax benefits, they should move to Montana.
I’d bet somebody lives in a Pontiac Montana.
Cars in California are only held to the standards of the year of manufacture, not to subsequent calender years. A car built in 1977 only has to meet 1977 emissions standards, not 2026 standards. A modified car only has to meet the standards of the year of the chassis or engine, whichever is more recent.
Passing smog is not hard, just maintain the car in good working order as it left the factory. If your car fails because you’re rolling dirty that’s on you.
But this 1977 car was only built to be tested using the sniffer test. Now (since 97) they have to be put on the dyno. Many cars from 1977 – 2000 were not designed to pass emission under load.
I remember the dyno test.
It was a cause of concern but I don’t recall any of my pre 2000 cars failing it, nor paying for any special, expensive repairs to pass. But I leave my cars stock and don’t mess with tuning.
Did we read the same article? This is not an emissions issue. It’s about rich assholes who don’t want to contribute to the system. They want everything for free. They’re entitled. And they complain about actual poor children getting food stamps and not starving to death.
I did read the article. Did you read my comment?
I said that may of these rich assholes started using this loophole after many “non-rich assholes” started using it to get around emissions.
They should audit every one of these cheaters. If they are cheating on car registrations, I’m betting they are cheating in other areas of their finances.
100%
I get it, here in PA we have annual safety inspections. Cars older than 25 yrs are emissions exempt already. New cars just plug into an OBD2 scanner in emissions counties. My honest feeling is if your hooptie can’t pass inspection, it shouldn’t be on the road. I think registered classics get a bi-annual safety inspection.
I wish California was like that. That sounds like common sense emissions laws.
Keep in mind, up here any daily older than 15-20 is pretty thin on the ground due to salt. Nobody is dailying anything with a carb anymore, and OBD2 has been in place for 30 years. A lit CEL is an automatic emissions fail. Several counties are likely dropping the emissions test soon – we are well past the point of diminishing returns.
Safety inspection is basically tires, brakes, ball joints, tie rods, steering, shocks, struts, exhaust, horn, lights and rust holes.
I disagree. If it’s still on the road it needs to be tested.
Case in point: a few years ago some kid brought in his Dads early 80s pickup for a smog check. The thing stunk so bad it made me physically ill, I had to leave the building. The tech tried to tell the kid to save his money but the idiot kid insisted and of course it failed miserably thank Christ.
If your car fails you’ve got options; Fix it, park it off street, sell it out of state or scrap it. You might even be able to get an exemption if you make a good faith effort to correct the problem but find it’s too expensive to fix.
No sympathy. The people who can afford these exotics can absolutely afford to pay taxes on them but are choosing to play games not to. I doubt it would even impact their standard of living, unlike a person making minimum wage where sales tax and annual property tax is a substantial portion of their income that they will definitely feel.
That is straight up fraud. the Autopian registering a $5k CrossTour that can’t be registered in CA is a somewhat different animal.
There was a post on here some time ago about how all U-Haul (trucks? trailers? both?) were registered in Arizona, despite many of those vehicles never set a tire in Arizona. I’m not sure how the Montana case is any different. If I work for a company that has its HQ it Montana why can’t my company register my company car in its home state?
The difference is that U-Haul still pays taxes to the states that the trucks drive in. So, an “In-Town” truck in Illinois is registered in Arizona, but Illinois still gets tax from U-Haul. When you register in Montana, your home state does not get your tax money.
It’s called the International Registration Plan, and it’s legally different than the Montana registration loophole.
Not to mention IRP is for commercial vehicles. Someone buying a McLaren and registering in Montana just so they can remove the catalytic converters isn’t commercial use. Despite the LLC or whatever “owning” the car.
Further, semi trucks with apportioned plates pay registration fees in every state the operate in. Their X7 BMW isn’t being used as a commercial vehicle.
Next up, people selling brand new Kei trucks and claiming they are state legal for road use and registration. Until the Feds do what they did back in the 90s which was find the illegal cars and crush em. Future story tip right here!
In Washington State if the vehicle is physically here in the state you have 30 days to get it registered in the state or get fined. Another interesting fact, Washington just passed a law on vehicles with historical or year of make plates which don’t need to be renewed. You must have own one vehicle that has regular plates if not then you can’t run historic plate. Its to close the loop hole of someone driving a 30 year old beater as a daily driver on historic plates.
We have the same law in WIo. Our collector plates. Besides no allowing them to be drive. In January you have to have a ‘regular’ tag car in the fleet. New flash to WI lawmakers, no one with a ‘nice’ collector car is going to drive it till
The snow and salt are gone. Sometime in May
Washington state, which is strapped for cash like many states, is leaving some on the table. You’re correct about the thirty day requirement, however they also have a somewhat contrary rule that says you can’t register a car there if WA state isn’t your primary residence (meaning you have a a drivers license from another state), even if you own or rent a home in WA. Every year I send a check to CA for a car that never leaves WA. If the situation were reversed, CA is more than willing to issue plates to a car owned by an out of state resident. I’m sure there must be a way around this, but I haven’t been smart enough to figure it out.
I see so many Porsche, McLaren, etc running around Seattle area with either Montana plates or WA plates with reg that expired many years ago. There are too many tech bros/gals who owe the state of Washington money but the state has no interest in collecting. And eff those people. They spend more on matching key fobs for their Porches than they do on taxes.
This reminds me of years ago when the state of New York sent a wealthy person (I forget whom and I’m too lazy to look it up) to prison for tax evasion. The person bought artwork at auction in New York and shipped empty crates to Connecticut to avoid NY tax, while actually putting the artwork in their NYC abode. States want their taxes and you’re taking a criminal risk if you try to evade them.
(Trump)
I wouldn’t put it past him, but no. This was in the early 2000s. I think it was some executive that I had never heard of.
That Montana loophole is alive and well here on the east coast. A local Cars n’ Coffee (Caffeine & Carburetors) in New Canaan, CT (not too far from metro NYC) often has quite a few such exotics.
People with Montana plates showing them off at cars and coffee are just asking to be narced out.
Yep!…and no joke, just this morning in the next town over from me what do I see? A DeLorean with MT plates!
Montana resident who knows people who run these LLC businesses. The issue is California law says that as long as the vehicle is not physically in California for the first year of ownership then putting the vehicle in a Montana LLC is perfectly legal. There are large buildings filled with exotica waiting out their year of ownership. My understanding is the California law was initially written for Californians who bought RVs that were never in CA. Rich guy complains to legislator and the loophole was created.
There was also an F40 with skis in Big Sky Montana this weekend. So, these tax evaders can still enjoy their cars while doing the required dance.
My guess is those being prosecuted didn’t follow the rules and are now getting into trouble.
None of this is intended to condone the behavior, just thought I would add some local knowledge. My favorite is I have seen a few cars here with joke old California license plates at car shows.
Yeah, from how it’s described here they were just buying cars and immediately giving them dummy Montana registrations to not pay California sales tax, which is neither to the spirit or the letter of the law and is different from the traditional CARB avoidance that traditionally Montana registrations have been for.
It seems more akin to criminals realizing they could abuse the Vermont mail in registration that people took advantage of when importing cars to instead wash titles.
I see these things more as a way the rich have found to screw over the normal folks. Nobody likes to pay these taxes, but it is only the wealthy who have the power to create loopholes to avoid paying their fair share.
The other argument I have heard is many of these cars are treated more like investments than vehicles. To that I say if you are rich enough to have a car as an investment you are rich enough to pay the taxes.
So, I know that’s the sales pitch on these deals, and it’s perfectly legal in Montana, but I’m not sure the state of California would agree with the people running the tax dodge in Montana. I suspect anyone who’s primarily using their car in CA while it’s registered in MT is still illegally avoiding taxes and at risk of getting in trouble when they decide to do a crackdown.
The issue is that may be what California wants, but that is not what their law actually says. If you follow what the law says then it is not illegal.
I’m very mixed on this. It will probably encourage them to leave California or at least buy something in another state so they can claim they live there and I would prefer they stay in California. They probably should be paying their fair share if they only live there but not sure I believe that money would make a difference especially in California where it would probably be funneled to something stupid or pure grift. Tennessee probably the same. They just work on the same stretch of i40 until they have to sell the machines working on it. Though I know Montana uses a Blackfoot company to repave the same stretch of road fairly consistently. I get why they are doing it but its probably a lot of people that aren’t actually that rich. The actual rich people probably have a ranch or something somewhere they can claim as their primary residence. Also how are the getting the data? Camera’s? Pulling people over? It just seems problematic.
I feel like if they want Montana taxes they should move to Montana. My suspicion is very, very few will do that.
The people who can afford these cars probably can’t keep making that kind of money in Montana, and even if they could I’m guessing Montana doesn’t have the kind of lifestyle amenities they’re after.
Bozeman has had a lot of that over the last few years. I’m not sure they can really afford the the way they are living currently probably one of the big reasons they go the Montana route in the first place.If they are using it as they claim as a tax dodge and not to get around some regulation. It’s become way too expensive anywhere near Bozeman and any population center in MT. Idaho is probably where they will move though as they have had this issue before and are rapidly expanding. They were all going to Colorado , Texas , Tennessee before but that seems to have slowed with just Idaho left.
Years ago I worked for an insurance company that specialized in classic cars and exotics. One day we got an assignment from leadership to verify the registration status of every vehicle insured above a certain value within that product line.
The Montana plates themselves were an issue, since we didn’t write policies in Montana. But what really raised red flags was that many of those cars were insured on personal policies rather than commercial ones. Our investigation team saw that mismatch as a potential indicator of broader fraud risk.
I found a Ferrari forum one day where there was a thread on Montana tags. The general consensus was “its not worth the trouble”, but there was some discussion on states cross referencing insurance databases to their registrations as a way people were getting caught.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was what led to the investigation from my former employer in the first place. We ended up dropping quite a few policies – either as cancelations or non-renewal notices.
I wonder what Montana is getting out of the information swap as this will surely put a revenue dent in their budget.
But like the man says every dollar of unpaid taxes is a dollar taken from a politicians wallet. I guess with the loss of federal dollars to graft the millionaires who haven’t moved out of California are needed to line those pockets
Note the Montana plates on the Autopian CrossTour… although this is a legitimate business endeavor.
I expected an editors note about the CrossTour. I’m surprised they didn’t call that out since they’ve been transparent about it in the past.
Numerous editors here have been upfront about using Montana/Vermont in their endeavors. I understand CA is a registration nightmare, but doubt IL is, as well as NC. My home of PA is an inspection state which can be a challenge.
Not trying to be an a** about it, we do what we gotta do. Farm Use FTW.
As does (did?) the NV200 Taxi
Isnt it currently not in California? Last report it was with Miss Mercedes in Illinois. Likewise, the taxi started with Jason in North Carolina and was driven to California by way of NYC, and presumably hasn’t seen much, if any use since.
It is currently in Illinois, yes!
as someone who had to renew their UT registration last month, it’s about damn time
I’m still pissed they moved the goalpost for classic car registration before I could get it done for my first gen Tacoma (life got in the way and I missed the boat for the old standards).
Good.
Saw an article on this on SFGate.com this am, was thinking of emailing it to the tips email, but you all beat me to it.
Last car I saw on Craigslist (SF Bay Area) with a Montana plate was a Gen 1 Honda Insight.
p.s. How often do you folks check the tips email?
Frequently in my experience. Gotten responses from Matt and more often Mercedes same day. And if I didn’t see a response it usually turned into an article pretty quick.
They also go out of their way for giving reasons on why they chose not to write about something.
Thanks! I sent something, but it was about vintage small airplane manuals I want rid of, not a story idea.
Oh! I’ll check the tips line! I try to get everything, but we get mountains of spam so I do miss things.
Hell yes. Nothing gets my goat more than selfish assholes not registering their vehicles in the state it is operated in. Paying for road maintenance and shared services is part of the social contract that 50% of this country seems hellbent on wiping their ass with.
I’m not sure — not having lived in California for over 15 years — but I believe another reason for the Montana (or other out-of-state) registration is to evade CA’s emissions regulations and the regular testing that goes with them.
CARB can get just as nasty as the AG, I believe. In either case, you wind up not being able to drive your car. Don’t know if you can be jailed for a “tune” or removing emission-control devices on older cars, but it wouldn’t be a complete surprise.
Surely, a new exotic can meet CARB, no? I wouldn’t think they need to hide from emissions, but I don’t own one.
They can. One of the problems with CARB that the legislature tried (and failed) to fix last year is that it is difficult or impossible to Smog a vintage car — the emissions equipment from the ’80s doesn’t work as well as it used to.
But yes, any new exotic can meet CARB, but you often have to order a ’50 state emissions’ package (which is really just the paperwork).
The “Leno Law” has been revived with a new Senate bill making the rounds. It’s not the rolling 30-year exemption that I’d prefer, but still very workable. https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2026/09/lenos-law-returns-california-sb-1392
I think the (somewhat understandable) worry with the rolling 30-year exemption is the increasing average age of the overall fleet.
Southern California is lousy with poorly-maintained barely-functional 30-year-old cars! The balance between “a 1996 Acura NSX is worth preserving” and “a 1995 Chevy Astro with rusted rocker panels should be scrapped” is worth maintaining.
Last years Senate Bill 42 (Leno’s Law) was tabled by the California legislative, among other bills, to take on the threats Trump was pushing. Numerous California laws were strengthened, like women’s access to abortion, among others. Now they can get back to other matters, now that the people are better protected.
If you see MT plates on a newer car in CA, it’s to avoid taxes. On an older car, it’s to avoid smog checks.
I would not be mad at someone with an older vehicle going the Montana route on an older vehicle (like David’s J10) .
It’s not like they are doing it to save $50 on the registration, in fact it might cost more because you have to pay for the LLC.
For brand new vehicles, it’s a sales tax thing. Vehicles that are newer than 8 model years old are not required to have a smog check until the 8th year.
At this point are there many vehicles are 49 state these days?