How a $26 annual fee became $37

Local, Norfolk 2 Minutes

I finally got around to heading downtown last Thursday to get my new car registered with the city of Norfolk. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that not only had my new car already been picked up by Norfolk from the DMV records, the car I traded in had been removed. The only thing left for me to handle was getting the refund of the taxes and fees paid on my old car and getting the bill for the same for my new car.

I was provided with a copy of the bill on the new car and immediately noticed that I was being charged the full $26 for the “license fee.” For those who are unfamiliar, this “license fee” is the old city sticker fee. When Norfolk did away with the stickers, they kept the fee and changed the name. Given that I had paid the “license fee” on my old car just prior to buying the new one, I balked at paying the full fee again – unless, that is, I was getting a refund of the full fee on the old car.

Not happening.

I was told that there is a policy in place that if you buy/dispose of a vehicle in the first 15 days of the month, it is treated as having occurred on the first of the month. (If bought/disposed of after the 15th, it is treated as having occurred on the 1st of the next month.) So because the deal on my new car was consumated on 6/11, I ended up paying the personal property taxes for 5 months on the old car and 7 months on the new.

The refund on my old car included $15.17 for the license fee, which works out exactly to 7 months. So far so good. So why the full $26 on the new car? Apparently, there is a different rule for charging the fee than there is for refunding it.

If a car is purchased prior to June 15 (effective date June 1 – see above), the fee is the full $26. If a car is purchased 6/16 or later (effective date July 1), the fee is only $13.

I’ve tried to figure out how this makes sense under any scenario but I just can’t. (I thought it might be a holdover from the old city sticker days – and it still might be – but I recall in the past buying a new car and just paying a sticker transfer fee of $1 or $2.) One of the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is consistency. Having one rule for refunds and another rule for charges is not consistent.

So my $26 annual “license fee” cost me $36.83, 142% of what it should be.  That shouldn’t happen. The refund and the charge should be based on the same rule; otherwise, it’s just another case of the fleecing of Norfolk citizens.

Published

15 thoughts on “How a $26 annual fee became $37”

  1. More arcane bullshit from the ‘government’, in order to misappropriate and waste it flittering away on more arcane BS. Not to mention the rules may be so complicated, even some employees may not be able to inform you correctly.

    Along similar lines, I was thinking about my 2009 Legislative agenda the other day…

  5. Thank you, Vivian, for acknowledging the efficient service of my Commissioner of Revenue office with respect to the registration of your new vehicle.

    However, as our Norfolk City Treasurer, Tom Moss often says, “nothing adds to the zest of an arguement like lack of knowledge of the facts.” And in this case, your comments give the impression that either my office or that of the Norfolk City Treasurer are subjectively handling such matters.

    The facts are that it is neither my office or that of the City Treasurer who decides how much a taxpayer owes or is refunded with respect to a vehicle license fee. Rather it is our City Council. Norfolk City Council enacted Section 24-163 of the Norfolk City Code which specifically addresses the proration of the vehcile license tax. I’m providing the code section for your reference:

    Sec. 24-163. Proration of tax.
    One-half of the annual license tax required to be paid by this article shall be collected when such license is issued on or after the first day of July.

    So you see, it is not that there is a “different rule” for providing a refund on your vehicle license tax it is that the LAW states we prorate by one-half of the tax after July 1. If you had purchased your vehcile on or after that date, you would have been refunded one-half of your initial license tax. Since you purchased it in JUNE, we are prohibited by law to pro-rate the tax.

    I hope this provides clarification for you and your readers.

  6. Hi, Sharon. As the Internet often says, “Reading is fundamental.” And try as I might, I just can’t read Vivian’s post to say your or the Norfolk City Treasurer’s offices are “subjectively handling such matters.” Vivian noted that there are different rules in place for determining the amounts involved, and that this inconsistency falls outside of GAAP. If the City Council isn’t aware of that, maybe someone from your office or the Treasurer’s office might want to inform them of that.

  8. I note that Mrs. McDonald is in full agreement with Vivian regarding the facts of the matter at hand, to wit the law regarding licensing a new car in the City of Norfolk mandates that the tax be pro-rated on a half-yearly basis, whereas refunds on vehicles disposed of are prorated on a monthly basis. As someone who isn’t familiar with Norfolk’s local tax law, I appreciate Mrs. McDonald taking the time today to verify for us that Vivian’s understanding of the two different guidelines is, in fact, correct.

    And on a blog before noon on a Thursday, no less! That’s some impressive constituent service.

    In any case, I wonder if you have an opinion on Vivian’s assertion that the two guidelines should be reconciled within the tax law so that all licensing fees are pro-rated the same way? As it stands now, a less knowledgable taxpayer who hasn’t taken the time to read the tax code and who doesn’t have the Commissioner of the Revenue posting tax tips on his blog might make the mistake of assuming the Norfolk City Gov’t is playing a little “gotcha” with their inconsistent pro-rating laws (which I imagine is a complaint you may have heard before, since you very quickly assumed that’s what you were reading here).

    Thanks in advance for your time, Mrs. McDonald!

  9. “As it stands now, a less knowledgable taxpayer who hasn’t taken the time to read the tax code and who doesn’t have the Commissioner of the Revenue posting tax tips on his blog might make the mistake of assuming the Norfolk City Gov’t is playing a little “gotcha” with their inconsistent pro-rating laws….”

    Why would that be a mistake?

    “[This] inconsistency falls outside of GAAP.”

    When has the government worried about GAAP, except with regards to the companies from which they are taking money?

  10. I really hope Mrs. Sharon M. McDonald -Commissioner of Revenue isnt using my tax dollars on bloging during normal office hours! My question: Do you support the inconsistency with paying/refund annual “license fee” ? If not, please explain. Remember election time for Commissioner of Revenue is next year!

  11. This makes no sense:

    If you had purchased your vehcile [sic] on or after that date, you would have been refunded one-half of your initial license tax.

    Um, read above – I was refunded more than half of my license tax.

    Are you trying to imply that I should have paid the “license tax” in full for both vehicles? After all, the code section you refer to is silent on refunds, only the charges. (For those playing along, the Norfolk Code is available here. The relevant section is Chapter 24, Article III.)

  12. I see Sharon’s still trying to run both the Commissioner’s office and the Treasurer’s office. And giving the wrong answer. Instead of trying to defend Moss, perhaps you should have just taken Viv’s compliment.

    I think we need a new Treasurer (go Viv!) and a new Commissioner of the Revenue.

  13. If Vp’s new vehicle had already been registered by “Sharon McDonald’s (not the citizens of Norfolk) Commissioner of the Revenue Office” and the old vehicle had already been removed which created a credit, why did Vp have to go to City Hall to get a bill for the new car and a refund on the old one? How long was the City going to hold on to her refund? Why didn’t she just receive a new bill with the credit applied? This makes no sense. I know alot of people that had refunds sitting on their accounts for weeks but were never issued a refund check until it was brought to the staff’s attention. I also had another friend that accidently paid his bill twice and the Treasurer just took the money even though he had a zero balance. Is this legal? Where is this money going?

    How does the City Code handle McDonald’s and Moss’ complete ignorance in the performance of their duties? And do we really believe that McDonald or Moss care? Not a chance. I’m surprised they can get their huge egos through the doors of City Hall.

    It’s certainly no surprise to anyone Sharon has been running the Treasurer’s office for the last six years and it’s obvious she controls City Council in the same manner. Is anybody getting this? She’s only comes to Moss’ defense because he’s too much of a fool to ever stand up to her and that’s exactly the way she likes it. It gives her free reign and total dominance. She’s a disgrace and an embarassment to her gender . . . what a horrible role model.

    City ordinances can be changed as long as they remain in compliance with State law. In this instance state law defers to the cities and counties to decide on the issue of proration. In short, this ordinance could be changed at any time if the powers that be want it to be changed.

    How sad that McDonald assumes we should be well versed in the tax code. Isn’t that why we have highly paid “elected” officials? But it seems we are no longer allowed to question anything. What happened to the good ole days when these highly paid “elected” officials were not there to “scold” you but rather help you by explaining (in a non-defensive manner) the tax code and assist you with your taxes? How dare she be so rude and so arrogant.

    Don’t be confused Norfolk, Moss and McDonald think we are complete idiots except on election day when all of a sudden we’re their best friends. They truly believe they are untouchable. Yes readers, Sharon blogs on city time and doesn’t care what anyone might think about that and I can only imagine what Moss does.

    I say it’s time for McDonald & Moss to get touched and Norfolk should evict them from their self made thrones.

  14. Sharon McDonald, Democrat and Commissioner of the Revenue for the City of Norfolk, is cut from the same cloth as Republican V.P. candidate Sarah Palin.

    She’s not tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Commissioner, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

    On becoming Commissioner, Sharon fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. She hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal; loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda. Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

    Sharon considers it a compliment to be referred to as “a lipstick pit bull” and is intolerant of jokes about her. She’s fired people for being fat, for having spouses she didn’t like, and for not serving at her “pleasure.” She investigates prospective employees to make sure does not hire anyone who expresses political aspirations; and she fires those who do. She forces staff to attend “educational” meetings that are about one side of political issues and has emailed staff to get their “voluntary” signatures on petitions for issues she wants to win.

    There is far more that could be told about Sharon. For example, her reaction to hearing about the terrorist attacks on the U.S. in 2001, on 9/11, was an oblivious don’t-bother-me response. It took a full week before Sharon before she presented a response and that was only because she was told it was necessary.

    It’s time to put an end to Sharon McDonald’s aspiration to be Norfolk’s Commissioner for life. Norfolk deserves better.

Comments are closed.