Connecticut News

[roadman]

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

At one point, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue tried to collect sales tax from sales Town Fair Tire made at their New Hampshire stores to Massachusetts residents.  The Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled against the state - http://www.searchautoparts.com/motorage/shop-owner/tire-topics/town-fair-tire-prevails-landmark-massachusetts-tax-appeal-case

[MikeTheActuary]

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

ISTR (but my Google-fu is too weak today to confirm) that a few years ago, some states, including CT, were experimenting with pressuring out-of-state online retailers to provide data on purchases made by state residents, so that use tax enforcement could be pursued.

I also seem to recall that those efforts quit being discussed much in CT after Amazon agreed to collect sales tax on CT transactions.

[connroadgeek]

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

ISTR (but my Google-fu is too weak today to confirm) that a few years ago, some states, including CT, were experimenting with pressuring out-of-state online retailers to provide data on purchases made by state residents, so that use tax enforcement could be pursued.

I also seem to recall that those efforts quit being discussed much in CT after Amazon agreed to collect sales tax on CT transactions.

Many online retailers these days have a business presence in many states to speed delivery and increase logistical efficiency, so they are forced to collect sales tax. In the internet's early days this was not the case, and I'm sure many remember the talk of a flat internet sales tax as it was killing local businesses. I guess now that most local brick and mortars have been killed off, or are on life support, and with many of the big online retailers collecting sales tax, that idea is no longer on the table and hasn't come up in many years. I know some years back Connecticut basically threatened people that were putting zero down on CT-1040 line 15 which is the use tax owed line, that it was a red flag that would increase the odds of an audit because the state knows everyone buys *something* online during the course of a year. The old tax form even required listing any purchases over $300 showing how much sales tax you paid and owed on individual items. If you put everything on a credit card, it's easy to figure out because you get those annual statements and it's easy to just dump it into Excel and sum it by payee knowing which of them charges sales tax and which don't. I live on the border and it's more convenient for me to go down the road and shop in NY and pay the extra ~2% sales tax. Too bad you couldn't use that negative sales tax difference to offset sales tax owed similar to income tax paid to another jurisdiction.

[southshore720]

Re: 95/395 junction -

The close proximity of exits 75 and 76 would seem to make this a prime candidate for some braided ramps. A few homes would likely need to be demolished for this to be done northbound, though, which means it won't happen. At least not in that direction.
Widening this section of I-95 so that 395 is a lane drop instead of an outright left exit would be nice and perhaps even feasible.
A poor man's solution to the safety issue might be to simply close the northbound onramp at exit 75.

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

I'm surprised that no one has brought our favorite pipe dream, Route 11, into this equation for future fixes to this interchange.

[connroadgeek]

Re: 95/395 junction -

The close proximity of exits 75 and 76 would seem to make this a prime candidate for some braided ramps. A few homes would likely need to be demolished for this to be done northbound, though, which means it won't happen. At least not in that direction.
Widening this section of I-95 so that 395 is a lane drop instead of an outright left exit would be nice and perhaps even feasible.
A poor man's solution to the safety issue might be to simply close the northbound onramp at exit 75.

Re: out of state sales tax -

Should the state choose to audit this sort of thing they could ask to see your credit card statements and inquire as to what became of every listed out of state purchase. They could even put the burden of proof on you and assume that you owe use tax on every out of state purchase unless you can demonstrate that you don't. It's draconian but aren't all tax audits?

That said, I haven't heard of this being done. It is probably a fair statement to say that this rule is unenforced, but that doesn't mean it is unenforceable.

I'm surprised that no one has brought our favorite pipe dream, Route 11, into this equation for future fixes to this interchange.

I would have 11 terminate at 395 just before 95, then if you want to get from 11 to 95 and vice versa you do it via 395 where there is already half an interchange in place. There just isn't enough room to build a full interchange between all three routes in that spot - as it is the 95/395 interchange isn't a full one.

[tckma]

The only purchase that will be caught is a car purchased out of state.  It'll raise a red flag when you go to register it and it shows up on your local town's property tax rolls, especially if you own a home (unless you own a home in the state where you purchased the car or registered it in a friend or relative's name who lives in that state.

Car purchases are about the ONLY things they care about for sales tax purposes, and you can't even register a car without paying some sales tax to the state of registration.  In 2004, I bought a car in New Hampshire because I got my best price from a dealer in Nashua, and then I had to pay MA sales tax when I registered it.

Also, I had bought a mattress at the Jordan's Furniture location in Nashua, but had to pay MA sales tax as it was being delivered in Boston.

They only seem to care for larger purchases like those.

Regarding car registrations.  In 2007, I bought a car in Massachusetts, from a MA dealer, and paid their 5% sales tax.  The following year I moved to Virginia.  I claimed exemption from their 3% sales tax on vehicles because I already paid 5% to Massachusetts.  They granted me that.

Then in 2009, I moved to Maryland, with the same car.  You pay the difference of the sales tax you paid to the purchasing state to Maryland's 6%.  I argued that was 1% as I had paid 5% to Massachusetts.  The MVA idiot made me pay 3%, since the Virginia title stated "Tax paid to other state" or something like that on it, and VA was a 3% rate.  I argued with a manager and everything.  I had proof (bill of sale for the car and MA registration) stating I'd paid 5%.  I wrote a nastygram to Glen Burnie with those proofs.  I got a refund check for 2%, as the person who read my nastygram agreed that by MD law I should only have had to pay 1% (difference between MA's 5% and MD's 6%).

[RobbieL2415]

The only purchase that will be caught is a car purchased out of state.  It'll raise a red flag when you go to register it and it shows up on your local town's property tax rolls, especially if you own a home (unless you own a home in the state where you purchased the car or registered it in a friend or relative's name who lives in that state.

Car purchases are about the ONLY things they care about for sales tax purposes, and you can't even register a car without paying some sales tax to the state of registration.  In 2004, I bought a car in New Hampshire because I got my best price from a dealer in Nashua, and then I had to pay MA sales tax when I registered it.

Also, I had bought a mattress at the Jordan's Furniture location in Nashua, but had to pay MA sales tax as it was being delivered in Boston.

They only seem to care for larger purchases like those.

Regarding car registrations.  In 2007, I bought a car in Massachusetts, from a MA dealer, and paid their 5% sales tax.  The following year I moved to Virginia.  I claimed exemption from their 3% sales tax on vehicles because I already paid 5% to Massachusetts.  They granted me that.

Then in 2009, I moved to Maryland, with the same car.  You pay the difference of the sales tax you paid to the purchasing state to Maryland's 6%.  I argued that was 1% as I had paid 5% to Massachusetts.  The MVA idiot made me pay 3%, since the Virginia title stated "Tax paid to other state" or something like that on it, and VA was a 3% rate.  I argued with a manager and everything.  I had proof (bill of sale for the car and MA registration) stating I'd paid 5%.  I wrote a nastygram to Glen Burnie with those proofs.  I got a refund check for 2%, as the person who read my nastygram agreed that by MD law I should only have had to pay 1% (difference between MA's 5% and MD's 6%).

The only way to avoid this is to claim the car as a gift or an inheritance from someone's estate.

[Mergingtraffic]

Let's pause for a sign

[Duke87]

I'm surprised that no one has brought our favorite pipe dream, Route 11, into this equation for future fixes to this interchange.

I would have 11 terminate at 395 just before 95, then if you want to get from 11 to 95 and vice versa you do it via 395 where there is already half an interchange in place. There just isn't enough room to build a full interchange between all three routes in that spot - as it is the 95/395 interchange isn't a full one.

I dunno about that. Adding route 11 to the mix would make it a 4-way junction. I could conceivably see an interchange that is a cloverleaf save for two high speed ramps to serve the through movements on I-95 going there.

Of course, when route 11 gets finished in 2082, ConnDOT can worry about it then. For now, it's a question of improving safety with the existing roads.

[KEVIN_224]

Saw this at Facebook today. It's looking generally east at the Exit 47 - Sigourney Street area of I-84 in Hartford, just before it was opened. No Exit 48A - Asylum Street ramp or cap over the highway between Exits 50 to 52 either!

[jp the roadgeek]

Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

[Duke87]

Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

That interchange was originally meant to serve I-484. It appears in the photo to actually be a stub to nowhere, with neither the connections to Asylum or Capitol in place.

Indeed, looking at Historic Aerials confirms this:
- stub interchange on 1967 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub still in place on 1973 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub removed on 1984 topo
- ramps to Asylum Ave and the current configuration in place on 1992 aerial

Looks like the connection to Capitol was added to make the interchange useful without 484, and the ramps to/from the east were removed because they did not connect to anything and thus served no purpose once 484 was cancelled.

[Mergingtraffic]

Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

That interchange was originally meant to serve I-484. It appears in the photo to actually be a stub to nowhere, with neither the connections to Asylum or Capitol in place.

Indeed, looking at Historic Aerials confirms this:
- stub interchange on 1967 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub still in place on 1973 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub removed on 1984 topo
- ramps to Asylum Ave and the current configuration in place on 1992 aerial

Looks like the connection to Capitol was added to make the interchange useful without 484, and the ramps to/from the east were removed because they did not connect to anything and thus served no purpose once 484 was cancelled.

So the ramps to and from the east were never used.  I've always tried to picture how I-484 would fit in there and was never able to do it.  That explains why b/c things were modified.

For example: One is able to picture the CT-10 expressway cement slabs at Exit 29 in Cheshire as you can see the grading etc.

I wonder when CT DOT do bridge inspections...do they inspect the never used parts of the stack in Farmington?

[Mergingtraffic]

Saw this at Facebook today. It's looking generally east at the Exit 47 - Sigourney Street area of I-84 in Hartford, just before it was opened. No Exit 48A - Asylum Street ramp or cap over the highway between Exits 50 to 52 either!

I think there's a Michael Summa photo of I-84 Exit 49 before it was opened and it was 3-lanes each direction, now it's 4-lanes.  So at some point it was widened.

[RobbieL2415]

Looks like there's a left hand exit WB to Capitol Ave, and the entrance that now comes from Broad St used to come from Capitol Ave.

That interchange was originally meant to serve I-484. It appears in the photo to actually be a stub to nowhere, with neither the connections to Asylum or Capitol in place.

Indeed, looking at Historic Aerials confirms this:
- stub interchange on 1967 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub still in place on 1973 topo
- ramps to Capitol Ave only to/from the west only with stub removed on 1984 topo
- ramps to Asylum Ave and the current configuration in place on 1992 aerial

Looks like the connection to Capitol was added to make the interchange useful without 484, and the ramps to/from the east were removed because they did not connect to anything and thus served no purpose once 484 was cancelled.

So the ramps to and from the east were never used.  I've always tried to picture how I-484 would fit in there and was never able to do it.  That explains why b/c things were modified.

For example: One is able to picture the CT-10 expressway cement slabs at Exit 29 in Cheshire as you can see the grading etc.

I wonder when CT DOT do bridge inspections...do they inspect the never used parts of the stack in Farmington?

Try to imagine two tunnels emerging from Bushnell Park.  I think I-484 with a new river crossing to a re-aligned CT 15 would help ease rush hour congestion at the Bulkley Bridge crossover.

[Duke87]

I wonder when CT DOT do bridge inspections...do they inspect the never used parts of the stack in Farmington?

Yes. They have to. Just because the structure is unused doesn't mean it won't still slowly degrade over time. Any overpasses over active roadways are therefore routinely inspected even if they aren't used.

[kurumi]

My I-484 page has a diagram of the entire freeway as proposed: 3-level I-84 interchange, Bushnell Park tunnel, and an assortment of tiny ramps of its own. Definitely an older style of highway design.

[8.Lug]

ISTR (but my Google-fu is too weak today to confirm) that a few years ago, some states, including CT, were experimenting with pressuring out-of-state online retailers to provide data on purchases made by state residents, so that use tax enforcement could be pursued.

I also seem to recall that those efforts quit being discussed much in CT after Amazon agreed to collect sales tax on CT transactions.

NY tried that and eBay started collecting tax on sales for a bit - but that ended quite abruptly. Now it's actually a part of the NYS Income Tax filing.

[mariethefoxy]

How does the reversable lane in Hartford work? I was looking at it on google street view but it doesnt seem straightforward where the traffic goes.

Its the one at the end of CT Route 2 in Downtown Hartford.

[RobbieL2415]

How does the reversable lane in Hartford work? I was looking at it on google street view but it doesnt seem straightforward where the traffic goes.

Its the one at the end of CT Route 2 in Downtown Hartford.

They've taken it out.  Both the one on Central Row and Asylum Ave.  Couldn't tell you why though, maybe someone else here knows.

[mariethefoxy]

so its two way traffic all the time now?

[jp the roadgeek]

Not all the time.  I believe the reversible lanes are still active from 6-10 AM weekdays.  I went down State St eastbound a few months ago at about 9:30 AM on a weekday, and couldn't go straight onto the Founders Bridge.   Once past Prospect St, all traffic is forced into the one left lane to turn left onto Market St, as the remaining lanes to the right act as contraflow lanes for traffic to turn onto Prospect St.  Westbound from the bridge, State St is one way from Columbus Blvd. to Market St, and the lanes left of the yellow dashed lines only allow for the left turn onto Prospect St, which is also one way at the same time to the next block at Bob Steele (formerly Grove) St.   The yellow lines double as the dividing line for 2 way traffic and a lane divider when there's one way traffic.  The reversible lanes on Asylum Ave are indeed gone.

[wytout]

So,  after a trip through eastern CT this weekend, I'm reminded that in ConnDOT district 2, all limited access highways have red and green delineators at the beginning and end of guardrails.  These seem to have been placed over the past 2-3 years. This is similar in application to those seen on all state and interstate highways in MA.  A red delineator marks the beginning of a guardrail section and a green delineator marks the end.

I'm curious if anyone knows whether this practice will be spreading to districts 1,3,4 or should it just be chalked up to District 2 daring to be different.  I have only seen them exclusively in district 2 and it's widespread on pretty much all limited access roads.  The latest edition of the CT Sign Catalog, revised in may 2015, still only lists  white and yellow delineators.  There is no listing for the red and green ones.

[jp the roadgeek]

And the tunnel option has officially been ruled out for I-84 in Hartford

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-i-84-hartford-0615-20160614-story.html

[connroadgeek]

So,  after a trip through eastern CT this weekend, I'm reminded that in ConnDOT district 2, all limited access highways have red and green delineators at the beginning and end of guardrails.  These seem to have been placed over the past 2-3 years. This is similar in application to those seen on all state and interstate highways in MA.  A red delineator marks the beginning of a guardrail section and a green delineator marks the end.

I'm curious if anyone knows whether this practice will be spreading to districts 1,3,4 or should it just be chalked up to District 2 daring to be different.  I have only seen them exclusively in district 2 and it's widespread on pretty much all limited access roads.  The latest edition of the CT Sign Catalog, revised in may 2015, still only lists  white and yellow delineators.  There is no listing for the red and green ones.

They went up a couple of years ago. Not sure what the point of that practice is.