355F1

Well having bought and sold everything from a Honda to a Ferrari I am not one to miss those kinds of details!

355F1

Just had an AZ dealer offer me $46,500 on an MSRP of $50,162.

I am sending him my quotes from the CA dealers to see if he will budge.

He flat out told me he has no problem selling an UL at invoice as they don't sell many of them.

gmanusmc

From what I understand, sales tax is based on the location the vehicle is registered - Lexus Financial will take care of those details - you are one of the lucky folks if you reside in a location that has no sales tax on leases.

SW17LS

Plus the $4,000 rebate on top right?

355F1

There are no sales taxes on anything in Oregon.

gmanusmc

You lucky son of a gun!

Also, looking at the numbers of what you're trying to accomplish, I think you'll be in pretty good shape being able to deduct .525 a mile for business - the lease is only going to cost you around .36 - .38 per mile. Maybe less if you can sell for a profit at lease end.

lesz

It could well be the case that the dealer inventories of the 2017 UL ES are getting small. Even throughout the rest of the year, UL ESs are somewhat rare. This year, the big rebates hit in July, and many of the people who reported getting great deals on an UL ES bought them in either late July or in August. And, when I was checking inventories, it did appear that dealers were significantly reducing those inventories during that time period. If the inventories are down to manageable numbers, I can understand if the dealers aren't feeling the need to do heavy discounting.

My recollection is that many of the best prices west of the Mississippi came from Sewell Lexus in Texas. I think that I remember some of the best California prices coming from Longo Lexus, but my memory might be faulty about that.

I bought my 2017 UL ES last fall just a few weeks after the 2017s became available. I solicited prices from dealers on both the 2017 and the 2016 UL ES. The best offers that I was getting on the 2016s were at about a $9500 discount from MSRP, which included a $2500 Lexus rebate. The best offer that I got on a 2017 came with a discount from MSRP of about $6500, which included a $1000 Lexus rebate. I thought that, for the very beginning of the model year, the offer on the 2017 was excellent. Also, if I keep the car for 3 years, at the time wheh I sell it or trade it, the 2017 will still have a re-sale or trade value that is about $3000 higher than will be the value of the 2016 at that point. The only significant difference between the 2016s and the 2017s is that the 2017s have a Generation 9 navigation system, which has some nice improvements over the Generation 8 navigation system in the 2016 ES. In any case, considering that the 2017 will still be worth $3000 more than the 2016 when I'm likely to trade it in and the newer navigation system made it an easy choice for me to buy the 2017.

In your case, if you buy a 2018, you are not likely to be getting either a $4000 lease rebate or a $2500 purchase rebate at the beginning of the model year, but, considering that sedan sales, including those of the ES, have been way down, I won't be surprised to see some (smaller) rebates early in the model year. And, if you do buy a 2017 now, you will be buying what is already essentially a "last year's model". If you are thinking that you will be keeping the car for only 3 years, it is likely to be the case that, 3 years down the road from now, the value of a 2018 ES will be higher than that of a 2017 ES by an amount that is close to the difference between what you would be paying for a new 2018 now, compared to what you would be paying for a new 2017.

lesz

I know that each state has its own sales tax laws, but I'm skeptical about whether the purchase of a vehicle in California by an out-of-state buyer requires paying California sales taxes. I thought that it was uniformly true throughout the country that sales taxes on vehicles were paid based on the sales tax rate where the vehicle will be registered. I just spent a few minutes doing a Google search, and everything I found was consist with what that notion.

According to the California Buyer''s Guide to Tax, "When you buy a car, tax is due based upon the location where the car will be registered (usually the owner's home), not where you bought it".

The entire California Buyer's Guide to Tax can be found here.

https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub452.pdf

355F1

tell that to the now THREE CA dealerswho have told me this.

SW17LS

I might call the California DMV. I have been told by multiple dealers that you can't get a sales tax credit when trading in a leased vehicle on a new vehicle of a different brand. Its not true. I had one dealer swear up and down it was true and he let the sale go over it. Went down the street to another dealer of the same brand, did the deal and got the sales tax credit.

Just because dealers tell you something is the case doesn't mean it is.

lesz

Similarly, I've had Chicago area dealers try to tell me that, if I bought from them, I would have to pay sales tax at the Chicago area rate, which is about 3% higher than the rate in the county where I live. That also is not true, and the sales tax that I've ended up paying, regardless of where I've bought my cars, has ended up being at the rate for my county.

And I'd be interest in hearing what those dealers' reaction would be if you showed them the statement from California Tax Buyer's Guide that I linked to earlier.

gmanusmc

Not sure if you can rely on this as accurate and it's a few years old:

https://www.quora.com/If-I-buy-a-car...ay-taxes-twice

lesz

Since my previous post, my curiosity led me to do more reading. What I've found is information that both supports and contradicts what the OP has been told about the California dealers being required to collect California sales tax from out of state buyers.

I've found sources that say that California does collect California sales tax from out-of-state buyers but that the tax paid in California can be applied as a credit to pay the sales tax in the state where the vehicle will be registered. Further, if the state where the vehicle is registered does not have a sales tax, these sources have said that the buyer can apply to a refund from California but the process of doing so can be cumbersome.

Other sources indicate, as I believe the OP said in a much earlier post, that the California dealers will not collect the sales tax if the buyer has the vehicle shipped to an out-of-state location. While cost is involved in doing so, that cost would be substantially lower than the cost of the sales tax.

And other sources are saying that California dealers only collect sales tax that would be required in the home state of the buyer, and, if there is no sales tax in that state, the California dealers would not collect any sales tax.

Still other sources say that, if after you agree to purchase the car in California, you apply for the title in Oregon and take possession of the car only after making that application and providing proof of having done so to the dealer, the California dealer will not collect any sales tax.

So, even though not all of these sources are saying the same thing, it does appear that, even if California dealers would normally be required to collect sales tax from out-of-state buyers, there are ways to legally avoid having to pay the sales tax and/or ways of recovering any sales tax that was paid.

355F1

Well guess what.....NOW we are talking decent pricing for a purchase.

BUT WTF???? They say I have to pay the City Sales Tax no matter what state I live in.

Geez....I never thought this would be so complicated.

I might as well just wait until the 2018's come out.....

gmanusmc

Why do you have to pay an AZ tax if you are an Oregon resident and are going to register the car there?