Jason Gardner, deputy executive director of the Utah State Tax Commission, told the Transportation Interim Committee that Utah statute defines a “vintage vehicle” as a motor vehicle or motorcycle 30 years old or older primarily used as a collector’s item and not for daily transportation. Gardner said owners must sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the vehicle is used only for club activities, exhibitions, tours, parades, occasional transportation and that the vehicle is safe for highway operation.
The commission’s presentation showed layers of statutory dates and administrative rules that create inconsistent outcomes and enforcement challenges toward emissions exemptions, license-plate privileges and registration fees. Gardner explained the interaction of three separate age markers: 30 years (eligibility as a vintage vehicle), model-year 1982 or older (automatic exemption from emissions testing) and a rolling 40-year threshold (one-time registration fee relief for owners 40 years or older). He said these stacked dates “create all sorts of confusion.”
Why it matters: owners and enforcement agencies face different incentives and uneven compliance across counties because emissions policies vary by county, collector-insurance products are not standardized, and “occasional use” is undefined in statute.
Key details from the Tax Commission briefing: vehicles 1982 and older are automatically exempt from emissions if otherwise eligible as vintage; vehicles model-year 1983–1995 may be exempt from emissions when the county does not require emissions testing or when the owner provides proof of collector-specific vehicle insurance in addition to liability coverage; registering as vintage also can provide a black-and-white specialty plate and, for some owners, a one-time registration fee in lieu of an annual registration fee. Gardner said collector insurance policies are not homogenous and that the Tax Commission has limited ability to interpret private insurance contracts.
Public commenters and lawmakers pressed for simplification. Robert Godfrey, who said he helped draft the original law, argued that the 30-year rolling definition now covers increasingly newer vehicles and urged a fixed year (he suggested 1974 for “classic muscle cars”). Representative Thurston and others urged a single clear line—e.g., a year cutoff tied to the oldest widely recognized classic cars—so that enforcement and incentives are simpler to administer.
Action: Representative Thurston moved, “I move that we open a committee file for simplifying the registration process of classic and vintage vehicles.” The committee voted and the motion passed unanimously. The chair said Representative Thurston will be assigned to carry that bill file.
Discussion vs. decision: the Tax Commission presented facts and administrative practice; the committee voted only to open a bill file to study and simplify the law, not to change statutory language yet.
Ending: Committee members asked Tax Commission staff to work with legislators and stakeholders on options that would narrow ambiguous definitions (for example “occasional use”), clarify collector-insurance requirements for emissions exemptions and recommend a simpler age or model-year rule for plate and emissions treatment.