When it comes to paying tax, ownership/use/residency is up for examination by tax authorities. They will make a determination based on their evidence and if you don't like it you can take it to tax court and you all can show a judge your evidence.
Hi the ownership/use/residency is not something that can be interpreted subjectively in cases where they like, to prejudiciously or personally target select individuals they don't like. I'm simply stating that when it comes to paying tax, it's up to wherever you live to articulate clearly when and how you pay tax when it's applicable to you.
When you don't owe tax, you don't pay it. When you owe it, you pay it. However don't cloud up the space and confuse people by saying you owe tax for property you don't own because someone feels that you are evading tax. That's not actually lawful or law based justice, that's hate/fear and prejudice based simply to prove a point. For example here, that privacy is not allowed and that you should be afraid for not taking ownership of things you use such as vehicles.
In cases where you use things you don't own, the law is usually pretty clearly articulated: pay use tax for what you use, pay registration and sales/registration taxes for things you own. Tax authorities know this and will articulate it clearly usually, except I suppose in certain prejudiced and discriminatory cases like when privacy is concerned like vehicle registration by LLCs. Now do you need to take ownership of things you use in a state just so you can hypothetically pay a tax for an evasion accusation that you don't apply to, I would be incredibly surprised to see if any state actually is saying this - I don't think its constitutionally or legally sound in any way. Instead, what I see, is fear mongering, authoritarian language and discourse and simply as I originally stated in my post Ad Hominem and logically fallacy based communication.
> However don't cloud up the space and confuse people by saying you owe tax for property you don't own because someone feels that you are evading tax.
Legally, single member LLCs often simply pass-through tax obligations. In this situation, the law literally disregards their existence for tax purposes.
> Now do you need to take ownership of things you use in a state just so you can hypothetically pay a tax for an evasion accusation that you don't apply to, I would be incredibly surprised to see if any state actually is saying this - I don't think its constitutionally or legally sound in any way.
No nobody is arbitrarily forcing anyone to trade ownership of anything -- a Montana LLC could register their car locally in CA. But that defeats the point of the "Montana car registration scheme" -- which is tax evasion.
If there is an actual real company in Montana that is giving their employees a car to drive around in California, they need to register it in California and pay tax there.
