I have to pay for a car dealerships mistake?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
§ 105-164.7. Sales tax part of purchase price.
Every retailer subject to the tax levied in G.S.
105-164.4 shall at the time of selling or delivering or taking
an order for the sale or delivery of taxable tangible personal
property or a taxable service, or collecting the sales price,
add to the sales price the amount of tax due. The tax
constitutes a part of the purchase price, is a debt from the
purchaser to the retailer until paid, and is recoverable at law
in the same manner as other debts. The tax must be stated and
charged separately from the sales price, shown separately on the
retailer's sales records, and paid by the purchaser to the
retailer as trustee for and on account of the State. The
retailer is liable for the collection of the tax and for its
payment to the Secretary. The retailer's failure to charge to or
collect the tax from the purchaser does not affect this
liability. It is the intent of this Article that the tax be
added to the sales price of tangible personal property and
services when sold at retail and be borne and passed on to the
customer, instead of being borne by the retailer. (1957, c.
1340, s. 5; 1973, c. 476, s. 193; 2000-19, s. 1.3.)

Doesn't say whether the seller can go back to the customer to correct errors, but it does say if they don't collect the tax, they still have to submit it. Note use of the word 'collect'.

In the absence of case law, and using laws for a different state, this is hardly good support that the dealer is on the hook for the error.

edit: I googled for Georgia laws, but the state of Georgia website appears to be down right now (or at least it is for me).

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
§ 105-164.7. Sales tax part of purchase price.
Every retailer subject to the tax levied in G.S.
105-164.4 shall at the time of selling or delivering or taking
an order for the sale or delivery of taxable tangible personal
property or a taxable service, or collecting the sales price,
add to the sales price the amount of tax due. The tax
constitutes a part of the purchase price, is a debt from the
purchaser to the retailer until paid, and is recoverable at law
in the same manner as other debts. The tax must be stated and
charged separately from the sales price, shown separately on the
retailer's sales records, and paid by the purchaser to the
retailer as trustee for and on account of the State. The
retailer is liable for the collection of the tax and for its
payment to the Secretary. The retailer's failure to charge to or
collect the tax from the purchaser does not affect this
liability. It is the intent of this Article that the tax be
added to the sales price of tangible personal property and
services when sold at retail and be borne and passed on to the
customer, instead of being borne by the retailer. (1957, c.
1340, s. 5; 1973, c. 476, s. 193; 2000-19, s. 1.3.)

Doesn't say whether the seller can go back to the customer to correct errors, but it does say if they don't collect the tax, they still have to submit it. Note use of the word 'collect'.

In the absence of case law, and using laws for a different state, this is hardly good support that the dealer is on the hook for the error.

Looks to me like this proves my point.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Spencer278
It has everything to do with who pays for the error. The dealership argued to sell a car with the wrong amount of tax. The dealer is required by the state to pay the state the correct amount of tax. Niether the state nor the dealer would be able to sue the OP for the remandier of the tax.

The dealership made an error without intent. Had they not made the error, the buyer would have had to pay the correct tax amount anyway. As the buyer is legally responsible for the tax, it was really his duty to know what the proper tax should have been.
They won't even have to sue him. They can simply delay the title transfer to his name indefinitely or they can lien the vehicle or even lien his drivers license (which could prevent him from renewing it). The state can do many things the rest of us cannot in order to get their money.
The dealership (as I said) is simply providing a service to the state. If the OP refuses to pay the taxes and he financed the vehicle, another recourse they have is that they can even go back and re-write the finance contract to include the deficient tax amount in the balance owed (and the lender would agree with it and it would be legal as they would simply be protecting their interest in the collateral, an interest the OP would have signed to uphold). The lender can even default on the OP and force repossession simply for the OP not upholding the lenders interest in having a clean title on the collateral.

All of the above is unlikely, but possible. Long story made short: give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, 'cause Caesar is a badass who can fsck your life over. Pay your taxes.

I don't think they can legally do this at all.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
§ 105-164.7. Sales tax part of purchase price.
Every retailer subject to the tax levied in G.S.
105-164.4 shall at the time of selling or delivering or taking
an order for the sale or delivery of taxable tangible personal
property or a taxable service, or collecting the sales price,
add to the sales price the amount of tax due. The tax
constitutes a part of the purchase price, is a debt from the
purchaser to the retailer until paid, and is recoverable at law
in the same manner as other debts. The tax must be stated and
charged separately from the sales price, shown separately on the
retailer's sales records, and paid by the purchaser to the
retailer as trustee for and on account of the State. The
retailer is liable for the collection of the tax and for its
payment to the Secretary. The retailer's failure to charge to or
collect the tax from the purchaser does not affect this
liability. It is the intent of this Article that the tax be
added to the sales price of tangible personal property and
services when sold at retail and be borne and passed on to the
customer, instead of being borne by the retailer. (1957, c.
1340, s. 5; 1973, c. 476, s. 193; 2000-19, s. 1.3.)

Doesn't say whether the seller can go back to the customer to correct errors, but it does say if they don't collect the tax, they still have to submit it. Note use of the word 'collect'.

In the absence of case law, and using laws for a different state, this is hardly good support that the dealer is on the hook for the error.

edit: I googled for Georgia laws, but the state of Georgia website appears to be down right now (or at least it is for me).

Where it's gets messy is resolving this with the italics. Can a consumer be deemed to have discharged their debt if they paid an incorrect amount of tax?

If I were arguing to get out of the tax, that's the road I would go down, along with an argument that the dealer would be an assumed expert on the matter of vehicle taxation. Therefore I signed a contract oin good faith and executed my part of the bargain, all the while trusting in the expertise of the dealer to properly formulate the contract.

I think I'd lose the argument, but that's what I'd try.

 

[erikistired]

it sounds to me like they are trying to get 150 bucks out of you. first they calculated the wrong percentage, and now it's based on weight? which one is it? tell the dealership you'll send it to the state when you get your tags.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Looks to me like this proves my point.

See my reply - the whole law would apply, therefore you can't just change the bolded section and call it done. And even then only if the sale was made in New York.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Looks to me like this proves my point.

Sigh... the dealership is required to collect the taxes, the buyer is required to pay the taxes. As I said before, this is how the state guarantees they get paid, all bases covered. The dealership attempted to collect the taxes at point of sales (fulfilling its obligation to the state) but, without intent, made an error in the correct amount of the taxes. As the buyer would have had to pay the correct amount anyway (had they been caculated properly in the first place), he is still liable. By contacting and informing the buyer of the correct amount that needs to be paid after the sale, the dealership is STILL fulfilling its legal obligation in collecting the proper tax.

 

[thecrecarc]

okay the dealer is not responsible for the taxes the buyer are! just say thy got it right the buyer would still have to pay the taxes! taxes are the buyers probrem not the dealers! even if the dealer messed up do u think u don't pay taxes anymore?!?! no! taxes are the buyers probrem the dealer just collects it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Looks to me like this proves my point.

See my reply - the whole law would apply, therefore you can't just change the bolded section and call it done. And even then only if the sale was made in New York.

Well, I think the bolded section is the most important part as it pertains to this discussion. The buyer and seller signed a contract for the sale of a vehicle. The law says that "the retailer is liable for the collection AND payment of the tax to the Secretary. The retailer's failure to charge or collect the tax from the purchaser does not affect this liability." So, the dealership cannot simply fail to fullfill his part of the bargain and not pay because they made a mistake. He is saying he can do this but he is bluffing and hoping the OP will just pay up instead of fighting it. I don't think the dealership has any case here.

Still, I do not know GA law. I think your best bet would be to call an attorney who has experience dealing with contract disputes because this clearly isn't a tax law matter. It is a contract dispute. You can probably get some good free legal advice somewhere on this matter and I'd be willing to bet that if you told the dealership that you are not going to contact them until you talk to an attorney that they would be willing to drop the matter.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't think they can legally do this at all.

Clearly you've never had a run-in with the DMV or Dept. of Revenue before. I'd keep it that way too, they have the ability to be very unpleasant.

BTW, before I became a mortgage banker 10 years ago, I worked F&I in car dealerships (never sales) and handled these very issues on a routine basis. As I worked in a state with no sales taxes (Oregon), but right next to the border with a state with very high sales taxes on vehicles (excise tax plus registration in WA state at that time averaged 11% of sales price, and the WA state resident had to pay it regardless of where he purchased the vehicle), I had to deal post-closing with tax evaders all the time.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Looks to me like this proves my point.

See my reply - the whole law would apply, therefore you can't just change the bolded section and call it done. And even then only if the sale was made in New York.

Well, I think the bolded section is the most important part as it pertains to this discussion. The buyer and seller signed a contract for the sale of a vehicle. The law says that "the retailer is liable for the collection AND payment of the tax to the Secretary. The retailer's failure to charge or collect the tax from the purchaser does not affect this liability." So, the dealership cannot simply fail to fullfill his part of the bargain and not pay because they made a mistake. He is saying he can do this but he is bluffing and hoping the OP will just pay up instead of fighting it. I don't think the dealership has any case here.

Still, I do not know GA law. I think your best bet would be to call an attorney who has experience dealing with contract disputes because this clearly isn't a tax law matter. It is a contract dispute. You can probably get some good free legal advice somewhere on this matter and I'd be willing to bet that if you told the dealership that you are not going to contact them until you talk to an attorney that they would be willing to drop the matter.

I would agree with your conclusion that the dealer has to submit no matter what.

The buyer will also have to pay no matter what. Once again, you can't only pick one section of the law to apply.

And again, again, it's pointless to get into the nitty-gritty of legal argument using laws from the wrong state

 

[Kelemvor]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Because state law supercedes your contract and since you made a purchase, you are liable for the sales tax on that purchase.

Talk to a lawyer but technically speaking, the dealership is the one that is liable for paying the sales tax to the government. They just bill you to recoup their losses. Government doesn't care who pays it and since they put it on the contract I'd say you are fine.

But I'd call a local attorney and ask for a quick 5 minute consultation and see what they think.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
§ 105-164.7. Sales tax part of purchase price.
Every retailer subject to the tax levied in G.S.
105-164.4 shall at the time of selling or delivering or taking
an order for the sale or delivery of taxable tangible personal
property or a taxable service, or collecting the sales price,
add to the sales price the amount of tax due. The tax
constitutes a part of the purchase price, is a debt from the
purchaser to the retailer until paid, and is recoverable at law
in the same manner as other debts. The tax must be stated and
charged separately from the sales price, shown separately on the
retailer's sales records, and paid by the purchaser to the
retailer as trustee for and on account of the State. The
retailer is liable for the collection of the tax and for its
payment to the Secretary. The retailer's failure to charge to or
collect the tax from the purchaser does not affect this
liability. It is the intent of this Article that the tax be
added to the sales price of tangible personal property and
services when sold at retail and be borne and passed on to the
customer, instead of being borne by the retailer. (1957, c.
1340, s. 5; 1973, c. 476, s. 193; 2000-19, s. 1.3.)

Doesn't say whether the seller can go back to the customer to correct errors, but it does say if they don't collect the tax, they still have to submit it. Note use of the word 'collect'.

In the absence of case law, and using laws for a different state, this is hardly good support that the dealer is on the hook for the error.

edit: I googled for Georgia laws, but the state of Georgia website appears to be down right now (or at least it is for me).

Where it's gets messy is resolving this with the italics. Can a consumer be deemed to have discharged their debt if they paid an incorrect amount of tax?

If I were arguing to get out of the tax, that's the road I would go down, along with an argument that the dealer would be an assumed expert on the matter of vehicle taxation. Therefore I signed a contract oin good faith and executed my part of the bargain, all the while trusting in the expertise of the dealer to properly formulate the contract.

I think I'd lose the argument, but that's what I'd try.

It all goes back to what is written on the contract. If the contract is something vague then the buyer would still have a dedt to the dealer. If the contract says tax = x where x = correct tax - 150 dollars then the buyer would have a good argument that the dealer waived the remainder of the dedt.

 

[JulesMaximus]

In a good faith, two party transaction, (commonly knows as a 'contract') each party bears the responsibility of performing their portion of the agreement. If the dealer says "your tax, license and registration come out to X", and both parties agree, then that's the offical stated contract price. They can't come back later and say, "hey, we want another $150 out of you because of our error". It was their error and they get to bear the cost. If they end up not paying the tax or registration on the car you could sue they for 'failure to perform' under the terms of the agreement.

This is a quote from my friend who's wife is a lawyer. I asked him this exact question and this is his response. He has an MBA in finance from Loyola and his wife is a contract attorney with a law degree from the University of Michigan (IIRC).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

In a good faith, two party transaction, (commonly knows as a 'contract') each party bears the responsibility of performing their portion of the agreement. If the dealer says "your tax, license and registration come out to X", and both parties agree, then that's the offical stated contract price. They can't come back later and say, "hey, we want another $150 out of you because of our error". It was their error and they get to bear the cost. If they end up not paying the tax or registration on the car you could sue they for 'failure to perform' under the terms of the agreement.

This is a quote from my friend who's wife is a lawyer. I asked him this exact question and this is his response. He has an MBA in finance from Loyola and his wife is a contract attorney with a law degree from the University of Michigan (IIRC).

But the contract didn't say that.

The contract stated a specific, and as it turned out, incorrect, amount of tax.

So the answer is misleading, or the question you asked was misleading.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

In a good faith, two party transaction, (commonly knows as a 'contract') each party bears the responsibility of performing their portion of the agreement. If the dealer says "your tax, license and registration come out to X", and both parties agree, then that's the offical stated contract price. They can't come back later and say, "hey, we want another $150 out of you because of our error". It was their error and they get to bear the cost. If they end up not paying the tax or registration on the car you could sue they for 'failure to perform' under the terms of the agreement.

This is a quote from my friend who's wife is a lawyer. I asked him this exact question and this is his response. He has an MBA in finance from Loyola and his wife is a contract attorney with a law degree from the University of Michigan (IIRC).

But the contract didn't say that.

The contract stated a specific, and as it turned out, incorrect, amount of tax.

So the answer is misleading, or the question you asked was misleading.

We don't really know what the contract said. It might have said that the total is X. If it did then the laywer quota would apply.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
We don't really know what the contract said. It might have said that the total is X. If it did then the laywer quota would apply.

I agree completely. And any dealer that didn't itemize taxes and all other charges on the bill would deserve whatever they got.

I'm assuming a minimal level of competency on the part of the dealer. Which may be assuming too much. If the bill is the equivalent of a napkin with a number on it, the dealer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[thecrecarc]

u know this would help if u actually knew what the "contract" said

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Spencer278
We don't really know what the contract said. It might have said that the total is X. If it did then the laywer quota would apply.

I agree completely. And any dealer that didn't itemize taxes and all other charges on the bill would deserve whatever they got.

I'm assuming a minimal level of competency on the part of the dealer. Which may be assuming too much. If the bill is the equivalent of a napkin with a number on it, the dealer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But even if they write taxes are X then they are agreing all thou unknown to them to eat the rest of the sales tax.

 

[Rufio]

get proof of the weight change of the truck.....

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Spencer278
We don't really know what the contract said. It might have said that the total is X. If it did then the laywer quota would apply.

I agree completely. And any dealer that didn't itemize taxes and all other charges on the bill would deserve whatever they got.

I'm assuming a minimal level of competency on the part of the dealer. Which may be assuming too much. If the bill is the equivalent of a napkin with a number on it, the dealer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

It doesn't matter if they itemized them or not. A contract is a legal and binding agreement between two parties. You can't just change the terms later just because you realized that you made a mistake. If the OP agrees to pay it then fine but they cannot force him to pay for their mistake and they cannot fail to perform their portion of the agreement if the OP doesn't pay. That is all I'm saying.

 

[imported_Mackie1604]

This is more than just a legal issue though...

this is a moral one...

The Dealer made a mistake. What if you don't have that money now, because you assumed the first amount you paid was right, and now you don't have the money???

I'm in the same situation kinda, but the dealer doesn't know it.

I had the dealer install a Rhino lining, and they wrote down on the bill, that it was paid for as part of the sales deal.

Well, I knew that wasn't true, but it was there mistake.

4 months later, they still haven't called, and I bet they never will....but if they do, its a big F*** O** as far as I'm concerned...

It's THERE DUTY to provide a accurate bill/receipt for you. If you have a receipt/paperwork that says you paid for everything, then as far as they should be concerned, you are done.

I think a small claims court might agree, but it could go either way.

Stricktly by the law, the court might make you pay, but they may say because the dealer had a duty to ensure the paperwork was 100% accurate, that any mistakes on their part that benefit you, you can keep.

Small claims courts sometimes don't always follow the letter of the law, so you never know.

 

[TerryMathews]

Since the disputed amount is only $150, couldn't this be argued in your state's small claims court? Or would the fact that the total amount is around $15000 prevent filing in small claims court?

EDIT: Also be sure to remind said dealership that your base CO can declare his business an 'Off-limits' for base personnel, which means posting MPs outside his business to ensure that no military personnel enter. Very, very bad for business.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Since the disputed amount is only $150, couldn't this be argued in your state's small claims court? Or would the fact that the total amount is around $15000 prevent filing in small claims court?

EDIT: Also be sure to remind said dealership that your base CO can declare his business an 'Off-limits' for base personnel, which means posting MPs outside his business to ensure that no military personnel enter. Very, very bad for business.

The base CO can do nothing, as the dealership has not done anything wrong or illegal. I invite the OP to take the dealership to court, he will lose.

This thread is ridiculous. I bet everyone who thinks the dealership is in the wrong also believes that there is a law that you can return a car within 72 hours after buying it.

Pay your taxes.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Since the disputed amount is only $150, couldn't this be argued in your state's small claims court? Or would the fact that the total amount is around $15000 prevent filing in small claims court?

EDIT: Also be sure to remind said dealership that your base CO can declare his business an 'Off-limits' for base personnel, which means posting MPs outside his business to ensure that no military personnel enter. Very, very bad for business.

:roll: