I don't think it will hold up in federal courts. This seems to apply to cars that the company officer who lives and drives in Montana as well. If this only applies to cars used more than 50% in CA is would hold up. Of course truck drivers who mostly don't drive in CA but that is home may find an out with that plan.

Details are important and very hard to get right.

▲

mikeryan a day ago | parent | next [-]

The core of the law, ie who is expected to register their car in CA and what state sales taxes need to be paid has already been in place for years and likely already challenged. This is just a modifier to address a particular loophole.

As long as nothing about this crosses state lines (ie they’re not trying to regulate out of state businesses or property) there’s not a lot to go on. Several states have taken similar steps to close this loophole. Famously the YouTuber whistlindiesel got arrested in Tennessee for this and the case is still pending

https://www.thedrive.com/news/is-the-government-making-an-ex...

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent [-]

Details matter and the article may have them wrong, but my reading is this accidentally covers out of state cars as well. I'm not going to look up the law to see who is right though.

▲

mikeryan a day ago | parent [-]

The cars are registered in MT but they’re under CA jurisdiction if they are primarily driven here. That’s the literal loophole. CA is not trying to force people to pay CA registration and sales tax on cars kept and used primarily out of state.

	▲	bluGill a day ago \| parent [-]
		That is the intent of course. However it is really easy to write a law that missing important details and so despite the intent cover all cars regardless of where they are used.

▲

jmilloy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If anyone running the business is a California resident (by the updated definition outlined above), then the whole business is a California resident, and any assets (including Lamborghinis and Bugattis) held in the state are subject to California taxation.

I'm relying on the paraphrasing in article rather than the text of the law itself, but this says that it only applies to assets held in the state.

▲

hparadiz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This tries to apply a tax to people who have never set foot in California. I have no idea how this holds up.

	▲	ted_dunning 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It actually doesn't do that. Did you even read what was written?