Anybody Fight CA over Hailing Port/Tax BS?

[rgscpat]

Who remembers the joke about the bird in the snow that ends with the punch line / moral of the story, "Not everyone who sh*** on you is necessarily your enemy, and not everyone who digs you out of the sh** is your friend"?

[Jammer Six]

I don't think so, but the Godwin thing always amazes me.

[BOATDOCTOR]

It's simple, and you don't seem to get it. The state of California most likely has in it's regulations, a statute claiming jurisdictional authority over any vessel which names a Hailing Port within it's borders the Hailing Port associated with the process of that vessel being Documented by the Federal Government (aka: USCG). This would be regardless of anything in the Federal codes, but the authority for which IS backed up by the Federal codes.

If you had documented the boat yourself, not a third party service, you should have seen the multitude of links on the documentation center's website. These tell of the authority of federal, state and local jurisdiction and so on.

Specifically read everything you can in 46 CFR Parts 67, 68, and authority definitions in 46 USC, chapters 121 and 125; 46 USC APP. 802 & 883
Shipping

In your case CFR Title 46, Section 67, Subpart K, Code 67.119 (c):
"The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located." I had an officer of the Coast Guard tell me in a voice communication that "IT" is the vessel.

And SURE, it can be anywhere, but that's not the issue here, the issue is what authority that location has once you've named it as the Hailing Port. You should have checked that before you named it.

I was also told by more than one officer, in more than one communication prior to the completion of our latest application, that you basically have two choices for your Hailing Port, and this can be changed on you by their authority... Where YOU are, and where the boat is supposed to be.

I drove those guys crazy the first time with requests they explain about half the presiding codes. They were nice, but I could hear the stress in their voices, plus the mix of admiration that I was making every possible effort to do things absolutely correct.

You'll get no dispute from me that you can name anywhere, but by the rules, that named place is where the boat is "supposed" to be primarily based, as in PHYSICALLY THERE. At least by intent if nothing else.

The Coast Guard Documentation Center (presiding legal authority at the federal level) told you, based on the code I just listed, to name your hailing port - even if there isn't even a lake to put the boat in, and/or where the boat is moored, docked, anchored, or sitting on blocks. Did you do this? I quoted the actual code for you... And even gave you a link so you can go see that I made no typo.

As far as California is concerned, they took you at your sworn word on that application, that if, filled in correctly, would mean exactly what they think, the boat is in California somewhere near the city of Hollywood (which is land-locked, by the way).

CFR's and USC state that making a statement on a federal application carries the same validity as a court sworn statement, thus incorrect statements constitute perjury or fraud. Based on your only two legal choices (per Coast Guard rules), you've declared that the boat resides or is based in their state.

From there, we go back to the CFR's, which state that once you declared California the Hailing Port, you have given them jurisdiction over your vessel, for state and local registration and taxes, plus any OTHER state where the boat may be actually located at the present moment.

The cover letter that accompanied your COD states: "STATE REGISTRATION: State and local officials have the right to board documented vessels for law enforcement purposes. Many states require registration of documented vessels for tax or other purposes. You may be required to place a decal on your vessel showing that you have COMPLIED WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS. CONTACT STATE AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION."

Complying with state requirements goes a lot farther than just registration, as referred to in this passage. The USCG cannot list each and every code in their communications, nor do they need to, because by law, you were supposed to go read them yourself before initiating action.

Here is a quote from the COD application you signed to get you COD: "Potential penalties for FALSE STATEMENTS or representations by owner or representative: civil, monetary, vessel forfeiture (46 USC 12151), fine and/or imprisonment (18 USC 1001)" I touched only briefly on this my last post. I think it is self explanatory.

You have freely admitted on this forum that the boat is not in Hollywood, and you had done so for the sake of novelty, not out of fulfilling the intent of the Hailing Port listing requirement.

Do you REALLY believe the Federal Government just wants you to arbitrarily throw out "any" location name, just for giggle sake? If you owned an aircraft you would already be dealing with the FAA, Homeland Security, and potentially the FBI for not clearly declaring the location of the "craft", and trust me, you'd already be feeling some pain in your backside.

The question was, and is, a serious one, and a legal one, and you treated it like a joke, and apparently believe it to be one if you think there to be no intent in requiring the information in the first place, nor ramifications for such an action for making a mockery of it.

Based on what I witness daily down here where drug runners are using these boats to move their illegal cargos, I expect that some time soon, just as it happened recently with aircraft, we will all see some newly re-worded codes, and even more codes added to account for vessels and their whereabouts.

Every time I sail to the end of our island, I enjoy a game of spotting the spotter... This is where we use our powerful binoculars to locate the land based surveillance team keeping an eye on what we're doing just off shore... you got it... where the small planes drop the drugs! This stuff is getting more and more serious by the minute. Been to the airport lately?

We can't ride the local ferry any more without being put up against a fence and run past by drug sniffing dogs while our bags and purses are removed from us and laid out on the port's dock. No matter if it's raining cats and dogs.

And the rest of you who've been criticizing California for doing what they're legally entitled to do, had he been telling the truth... You should do some homework of your own.

Sure, you can criticize their laws that you think are extreme or without merit, I've no problem with that. Heck, I'm a native and had done so myself the whole time I was there. But to say they are "wrong" in this issue is ignorant. The OP was wrong in his action. Then again when he ignored California's first attempts at communication and collection. Who else out there "ignores" something as important as that, and thinks it will just go away?

Being one who does pre-buy inspections and helps folks through the purchasing and registration and documentation processes, I'll give you an example of how some of this really works...

You could be in Idaho, and the boat in Florida, and you say it is a St Thomas based boat by naming Charlotte Amalie, St Thomas, USVI as the Hailing Port.

For 90 days Florida has no claim on her even though she's there. And St Thomas... they actually won't even allow you to register the boat in the USVI and take any money from you unless the boat is physycally there at St Thomas or St John at the time of making their "state" application for registration. So your first 90 days are free.

But... after 90 days, per THEIR local statutes (backed up by the "terms" of vessel Documentation), you either need the boat to leave their waters, or pay Florida registration, AND be subject to their use taxes, and/or Personal Property Tax (I've seen that get ugly). If the boat was purchased outside the USA, then you can add Duty to the tally as well... Ouch!

Reverse this and Florida will demand registration, sales and use taxes immediately, and Duty if due, even if the boat were physically in St Thomas! And because it is a Documented vessel, you've granted the Federal Government the authority to rub the state's authority up your rear if they want to. YOU NEEDED TO DO THE LOCAL HOMEWORK TOO.

Based on CFR's, if a state's laws say they have authority over you because you made some formal or legal declaration they say constitutes or grants said authority, like naming your boat's home port: Hollywood, California, then guess what, both state and federal law say that they do have that authority over you and your boat. But enforcement ends up being a whole other matter, doesn't it?

Now, since you aren't there, and I no longer study California law, I personally do not know what legal remedies they have available in this particular case, as to domestication of their claims in your actual home jurisdiction, so you may actually be able to ignore them and get away with it indefinitely.

In your case though, I'd be more worried about if California made a complaint to the Coast Guard that you have not complied, as their codes say you must do.

Haven't looked up the specifics to enforcement nor potential penalties for non compliance of the state level, when it comes to the COD. There may not be any, or it may be too "muddy" for the USCG to get in the middle of it. But what "may" be at risk wouldn't let me sleep at night.

On the flip side, if you fight California by admitting the boat is not, was not recently, nor will be in California, you've possibly opened yourself up to a formal complaint by California to the Coast Guard of falsified statements on a legal federal application, with penalties already described.

Good luck! I think you'll need a lot if it.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by rgscpat

Who remembers the joke about the bird in the snow that ends with the punch line / moral of the story, "Not everyone who sh*** on you is necessarily your enemy, and not everyone who digs you out of the sh** is your friend"?

I think as US citizens we also need to pay heed to directions for boiling a frog.

For those that don't know...if you put the frog in a pot of boiling water he will just jump out. One needs to put the frog in a pot of room temperature water and turn on the heat to gradually warm the water. Eventually the frog will boil.

Did anyone think even 10 years ago that our government would try to limit the size of a soft drink. 10 years from now you will be prohibited from eating unhealthy fattening foods like hamburgers. We will have a state mandated not to exceed BMI with penalties to go with it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I think as US citizens we also need to pay heed to directions for boiling a frog.

For those that don't know...if you put the frog in a pot of boiling water he will just jump out. One needs to put the frog in a pot of room temperature water and turn on the heat to gradually warm the water. Eventually the frog will boil.

Did anyone think even 10 years ago that our government would try to limit the size of a soft drink. 10 years from now you will be prohibited from eating unhealthy fattening foods like hamburgers. We will have a state mandated not to exceed BMI with penalties to go with it.

Yes but 30-40 years ago diabetes and obesity were not the issues they are today. Gov reacts to what's happening that's all. If we were all slim and trim, there be no interest in controlling sugar or junk food.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by BOATDOCTOR

Specifically read everything you can in 46 CFR Parts 67, 68, and authority definitions in 46 USC, chapters 121 and 125; 46 USC APP. 802 & 883
Shipping

In your case CFR Title 46, Section 67, Subpart K, Code 67.119 (c):
"The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located." I had an officer of the Coast Guard tell me in a voice communication that "IT" is the vessel.

The first sentence of that section clearly states: "Upon application for any Certificate of Documentation in accordance with subpart K of this part, the owner of a vessel must designate a hailing port to be marked upon the vessel."

And Subpart K's title pretty clearly states:

46 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter K - SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS CARRYING MORE THAN 150 PASSENGERS OR WITH OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS FOR MORE THAN 49 PASSENGERS

And that entire subsection's general applicability is similarly only applicable towards mid-sized commercial ferries and passenger boats

46 CFR 114.110 - General applicability.

It makes sense to me that a commercial passenger carrying vessel would have more stringent regulations regarding lots and lots of things - IANAL but this sure seems like it would not apply to a 36' private yacht; right?

Which again brings me back to the only regulation I am aware of which is that hailing port must be marked on the vessel 46 CFR 67.123 - Name and hailing port marking requirements.

Which I would argue actually doesn't apply either since the vessel is on dry land in the middle of a multi-year refit currently with no engine or masts installed I think I can make a pretty compelling argument that despite *any* documentation or claim to the contrary it's not a "vessel" until it transits a waterway and in actual fact right now it's an empty steel box

Sure, you can criticize their laws that you think are extreme or without merit, I've no problem with that. Heck, I'm a native and had done so myself the whole time I was there. But to say they are "wrong" in this issue is ignorant. The OP was wrong in his action. Then again when he ignored California's first attempts at communication and collection. Who else out there "ignores" something as important as that, and thinks it will just go away?

I want to be really clear on this point; I Did NOT ignore it
When I got the first determination; it was accompanied by a form with some checkboxes to select why I felt it should be 'exempt'

And "this boat is not in California" was ****NOT***** one of the choices

So I called them; and was told very aggressively that I was "REQUIRED" to "PROVE" that I purchased the boat out of state

When I got the SECOND determination in which they arbitrarily decided to levy a $5000 Tax on a $6000 1938 steel hull and gave me just 10 days to respond; I responded; in writing; and explained the situation

But that wasn't good enough; they want "proof"

I don't view it as a joke; as has been said before I am OFFENDED by their actions

Based on CFR's, if a state's laws say they have authority over you because you made some formal or legal declaration they say constitutes or grants said authority, like naming your boat's home port: Hollywood, California, then guess what, both state and federal law say that they do have that authority over you and your boat. But enforcement ends up being a whole other matter, doesn't it?

Well first of all; the closest that the state of California has come to citing any actual legislation is a vague reference to "Possible Nexus Issues"
I do not think it's at all unreasonable that a tax collector/investigator should be able to do what he claimed when he told me he would send me the relevant code(s) I think you are assuming a lot saying that California "probably" has it codified. Moreover the CA BOE is actually NOTORIOUS for overstepping their authority

But aside from that; I would absolutely dispute the notion that **ANY** Ca State law would give them the authority to impose a made-up 83% sales tax on Anyone for anything; much less a person in another state

They **MIGHT** be able to drag me in front of a judge/Arbitrator but I am 100% confident that I don't owe them a red cent

And not-for-nothing but so are they

[oldragbaggers]

Thank you BOATDOCTOR for that very informative post. It's about time some real legal answers made their way into this thread.

And the real crux of the problem lies in the fact that check boxes on forms and phone calls aside, the OP still hasn't provided the PROOF that the state is asking for. Send them your bill of sale and a receipt from your marina and be done with it.

[bornyesterday]

@ boatdoctor

"The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located."

I haven't even read the document but I'm still going to argue that "it" refers to the hailing port and not the vessel.

The quoted sentence refers to the requirement to mark the vessel with both hailing port and state does it not?

No need to call the Coastguard.

[captain58sailin]

When I first heard the story about the bird in the snow, was a Terrence Hill movie "My Name is Nobody".

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by bornyesterday

@ boatdoctor

"The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located."

I haven't even read the document but I'm still going to argue that "it" refers to the hailing port and not the vessel.

I agree

After further review I see that I was looking at the wrong subpart K though

So I'm still where I started I guess

[xymotic]

The damned bill of sale was also filed with the application for documentation; so it seems to me that California is being awful darned picky about which data it chooses to use and which data it ignores

[IdoraKeeper]

Just remember, "you can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave".

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by BOATDOCTOR

In your case CFR Title 46, Section 67, Subpart K, Code 67.119 (c):
"The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located." I had an officer of the Coast Guard tell me in a voice communication that "IT" is the vessel.

You are wrong on this one and so is the Coast Guard officer. Just because he's in the Coast Guard does not necessarily make him an expert on USCG documentation regulations. The IT is the hailing port. For the sake of argument let’s say that the op wanted to have the hailing port of Hollywood Utah, but there is no such place as Hollywood Utah, it would not be legal and not be allowed. Hollywood Fl would be because there is a real Hollywood Florida. Just plain Hollywood would not be because it does not include the State, Territory, or Possession.

It's quite common to get multiple conflicting answers from government officials. If you call the IRS for instance with a question 10 times you'll probably get 10 different answers, 9 of them wrong. I think this is what you experienced.

If a boat's hailing port was required to reflect its home port then you would have to change the hailing port every time you moved the boat on a semi-permanent basis. There is no such requirement. When I bought my boat I chose the City of New Bern, NC as my hailing port. I never actually kept the boat there on purpose, but kept it across the river in a marina outside of the city limits for Tax purposes. I did not live in New Bern either. I did not want to pay city property tax as well as County. Now in Year two I did get a surprise tax bill from New Bern, not because of my hailing port but because they had annexed the marina property into the city of New Bern. In Year three I moved the boat out of the City limits again. I'm now a Florida resident and have the boat registered in Florida. NC is not chasing me for taxes because my hailing port is still New Bern. The City of New Bern did not case me in year one or year three because of my hailing port. I simply told them I had moved never heard from them again. I didn't even need a notarized statement. I did have an interesting discussion with the tax department over the annexation. They said city did not have to notify us (the boat owners) of the proposed annexation because we were not property owners, yet they were expecting us to pay property taxes.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by BOATDOCTOR

It's simple, and you don't seem to get it. The state of California most likely has in it's regulations, a statute claiming jurisdictional authority over any vessel which names a Hailing Port within it's borders the Hailing Port associated with the process of that vessel being Documented by the Federal Government (aka: USCG). This would be regardless of anything in the Federal codes, but the authority for which IS backed up by the Federal codes.

If you had documented the boat yourself, not a third party service, you should have seen the multitude of links on the documentation center's website. These tell of the authority of federal, state and local jurisdiction and so on.

Specifically read everything you can in 46 CFR Parts 67, 68, and authority definitions in 46 USC, chapters 121 and 125; 46 USC APP. 802 & 883
Shipping

In your case CFR Title 46, Section 67, Subpart K, Code 67.119 (c):
"The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located." I had an officer of the Coast Guard tell me in a voice communication that "IT" is the vessel.

And SURE, it can be anywhere, but that's not the issue here, the issue is what authority that location has once you've named it as the Hailing Port. You should have checked that before you named it.

I was also told by more than one officer, in more than one communication prior to the completion of our latest application, that you basically have two choices for your Hailing Port, and this can be changed on you by their authority... Where YOU are, and where the boat is supposed to be.

I drove those guys crazy the first time with requests they explain about half the presiding codes. They were nice, but I could hear the stress in their voices, plus the mix of admiration that I was making every possible effort to do things absolutely correct.

You'll get no dispute from me that you can name anywhere, but by the rules, that named place is where the boat is "supposed" to be primarily based, as in PHYSICALLY THERE. At least by intent if nothing else.

The Coast Guard Documentation Center (presiding legal authority at the federal level) told you, based on the code I just listed, to name your hailing port - even if there isn't even a lake to put the boat in, and/or where the boat is moored, docked, anchored, or sitting on blocks. Did you do this? I quoted the actual code for you... And even gave you a link so you can go see that I made no typo.

As far as California is concerned, they took you at your sworn word on that application, that if, filled in correctly, would mean exactly what they think, the boat is in California somewhere near the city of Hollywood (which is land-locked, by the way).

CFR's and USC state that making a statement on a federal application carries the same validity as a court sworn statement, thus incorrect statements constitute perjury or fraud. Based on your only two legal choices (per Coast Guard rules), you've declared that the boat resides or is based in their state.

From there, we go back to the CFR's, which state that once you declared California the Hailing Port, you have given them jurisdiction over your vessel, for state and local registration and taxes, plus any OTHER state where the boat may be actually located at the present moment.

The cover letter that accompanied your COD states: "STATE REGISTRATION: State and local officials have the right to board documented vessels for law enforcement purposes. Many states require registration of documented vessels for tax or other purposes. You may be required to place a decal on your vessel showing that you have COMPLIED WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS. CONTACT STATE AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION."

Complying with state requirements goes a lot farther than just registration, as referred to in this passage. The USCG cannot list each and every code in their communications, nor do they need to, because by law, you were supposed to go read them yourself before initiating action.

Here is a quote from the COD application you signed to get you COD: "Potential penalties for FALSE STATEMENTS or representations by owner or representative: civil, monetary, vessel forfeiture (46 USC 12151), fine and/or imprisonment (18 USC 1001)" I touched only briefly on this my last post. I think it is self explanatory.

You have freely admitted on this forum that the boat is not in Hollywood, and you had done so for the sake of novelty, not out of fulfilling the intent of the Hailing Port listing requirement.

Do you REALLY believe the Federal Government just wants you to arbitrarily throw out "any" location name, just for giggle sake? If you owned an aircraft you would already be dealing with the FAA, Homeland Security, and potentially the FBI for not clearly declaring the location of the "craft", and trust me, you'd already be feeling some pain in your backside.

The question was, and is, a serious one, and a legal one, and you treated it like a joke, and apparently believe it to be one if you think there to be no intent in requiring the information in the first place, nor ramifications for such an action for making a mockery of it.

Based on what I witness daily down here where drug runners are using these boats to move their illegal cargos, I expect that some time soon, just as it happened recently with aircraft, we will all see some newly re-worded codes, and even more codes added to account for vessels and their whereabouts.

Every time I sail to the end of our island, I enjoy a game of spotting the spotter... This is where we use our powerful binoculars to locate the land based surveillance team keeping an eye on what we're doing just off shore... you got it... where the small planes drop the drugs! This stuff is getting more and more serious by the minute. Been to the airport lately?

We can't ride the local ferry any more without being put up against a fence and run past by drug sniffing dogs while our bags and purses are removed from us and laid out on the port's dock. No matter if it's raining cats and dogs.

And the rest of you who've been criticizing California for doing what they're legally entitled to do, had he been telling the truth... You should do some homework of your own.

Sure, you can criticize their laws that you think are extreme or without merit, I've no problem with that. Heck, I'm a native and had done so myself the whole time I was there. But to say they are "wrong" in this issue is ignorant. The OP was wrong in his action. Then again when he ignored California's first attempts at communication and collection. Who else out there "ignores" something as important as that, and thinks it will just go away?

Being one who does pre-buy inspections and helps folks through the purchasing and registration and documentation processes, I'll give you an example of how some of this really works...

You could be in Idaho, and the boat in Florida, and you say it is a St Thomas based boat by naming Charlotte Amalie, St Thomas, USVI as the Hailing Port.

For 90 days Florida has no claim on her even though she's there. And St Thomas... they actually won't even allow you to register the boat in the USVI and take any money from you unless the boat is physycally there at St Thomas or St John at the time of making their "state" application for registration. So your first 90 days are free.

But... after 90 days, per THEIR local statutes (backed up by the "terms" of vessel Documentation), you either need the boat to leave their waters, or pay Florida registration, AND be subject to their use taxes, and/or Personal Property Tax (I've seen that get ugly). If the boat was purchased outside the USA, then you can add Duty to the tally as well... Ouch!

Reverse this and Florida will demand registration, sales and use taxes immediately, and Duty if due, even if the boat were physically in St Thomas! And because it is a Documented vessel, you've granted the Federal Government the authority to rub the state's authority up your rear if they want to. YOU NEEDED TO DO THE LOCAL HOMEWORK TOO.

Based on CFR's, if a state's laws say they have authority over you because you made some formal or legal declaration they say constitutes or grants said authority, like naming your boat's home port: Hollywood, California, then guess what, both state and federal law say that they do have that authority over you and your boat. But enforcement ends up being a whole other matter, doesn't it?

Now, since you aren't there, and I no longer study California law, I personally do not know what legal remedies they have available in this particular case, as to domestication of their claims in your actual home jurisdiction, so you may actually be able to ignore them and get away with it indefinitely.

In your case though, I'd be more worried about if California made a complaint to the Coast Guard that you have not complied, as their codes say you must do.

Haven't looked up the specifics to enforcement nor potential penalties for non compliance of the state level, when it comes to the COD. There may not be any, or it may be too "muddy" for the USCG to get in the middle of it. But what "may" be at risk wouldn't let me sleep at night.

On the flip side, if you fight California by admitting the boat is not, was not recently, nor will be in California, you've possibly opened yourself up to a formal complaint by California to the Coast Guard of falsified statements on a legal federal application, with penalties already described.

Good luck! I think you'll need a lot if it.

1) You don't seem to get it. I provided credible evidence that hailing port and vessel location do NOT have to be the same, see post #15. IMO, you are interpreting the regs incorrectly. So our choice is to believe you or a company actual offering documentation services.

2) Your parallel to Florida is not even close the OPs issue. You are citing a case where the vessel that is actually located IN Florida. The subject of this thread is NOT located in CA. This is an important fact in this case.

It would be interesting to see if a court would issue a subpoena forcing the OP to hand over evidence. I would guess that a CA court would tell the tax bureaucrat, "We don't have jurisdiction in WA" and a WA court would say "Who are you?" or "That's not evidence for probable cause, bring back something showing the transaction took place in CA"...

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by DotDun

It would be interesting to see if a court would issue a subpoena forcing the OP to hand over evidence. I would guess that a CA court would tell the tax bureaucrat, "We don't have jurisdiction in WA" and a WA court would say "Who are you?" or "That's not evidence for probable cause, bring back something showing the transaction took place in CA"...

This gets to the heart of my issue with this whole process

Now granted this is not a criminal matter; but common knowledge of how our entire jurisprudence system works is based on probable cause and innocent until proven guilty

Ca has turned that entirely on it's head and they state flat out "you owe us $5000 unless you can prove otherwise" oh and BTW you have ten days to do it and you also have to jump through hoop x - y and z

I don't think they will try to get a judgement or anything like that though; I think they will just issue a lien on their own (which I obviously question the legality of) or send it to a collection agency and then force me once again to comply with their procedural BS to appeal it