Tariffs Don't Apply To Classic Imported Cars
Read the full story on Backfire News
While plenty of people are making it sounds like the new reciprocal tariffs imposed by President Trump will end all free trade, we have good news for everyone looking to import old hobby cars to the US. If the vehicle you're bringing in meets the 25-year rule, like a Nissan Skyline GT-R R34, for example, you won't have to pay a dime on tariffs.That's right, that nasty 25 percent tariff everyone seems to be panicking about won't be your problem. Instead, you'll just have to pay the 2.5 percent duty when your car arrives at port, and you're good.
We've heard some enthusiasts try to say the tariffs apply to old cars, not just new ones, and that's absolutely not true. Because the classics are exempt, we wonder if some people will opt to buy that JDM or Euro car from the 90s instead of purchasing some fancy new crossover.
If so, these tariffs could be a huge boon for the car collector hobby. People would also begin to understand why we love driving without an infotainment touchscreen, no sensors squawking, all while enjoying the tactile feel of a manual transmission. It's pure heaven on wheels.
It's true that for a bit it wasn't clear if classic cars imported to the US would be subject to the new tariffs. But the White House clarified that and other points on April 2.
To escape the tariffs, the car has to be at least 25 years old when you bring it into the country. People who like shopping in foreign markets for 'forbidden fruit' models which weren't originally sold in the US at all are quite familiar with this rule.
So if you've been on the fence about buying such a vehicle, whether it's a JDM Toyota from Japan, a Holden from Australia, or a special Euro-spec Mercedes from Germany, this might be reason enough to go for it.
Image via HertLIfe/YouTube
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
The copper market shows how tariffs are putting traders and businesses in a bind
Lingering uncertainty over the 90-day suspension of President Trump's high tariffs could scramble some traditional market signals as traders and businesses try to get ahead of government policy. Copper is one asset caught up in such a push-pull scenario, according to Morgan Stanley. The metal, sometimes referred to as " Dr. Copper ," has a history of serving as a leading economic indicator due to its wide use in industry. Viewed from that lens, it should be bolstering confidence on Wall Street right now. The front-month contract for copper futures has gained more than 5% since early May — though it is still well below its high of the year reached in late March, right before tariff fears shook markets. @HG.1 YTD mountain Copper futures are trending higher over the past month, though still below the highs of the year. Equities tied to copper are also doing well, with Freeport-McMoRan up more than 11% over the past month, and Southern Copper higher by 8%. However, reality may not be that simple. Amy Gower, commodities strategist at Morgan Stanley, said in a note to clients Tuesday that several factors are muddying the picture for copper, including "front-loading" from U.S. companies who are buying up the metal now, before potential new tariffs take effect. "Copper faces diverging market forces. [London Metal Exchange] inventories are depleting rapidly as copper is pulled to the U.S., boosting timespreads and prices, but China market signals are weakening, suggesting downside risks to come," Gower said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Commerce Department to look into the possible need for tariffs on copper. That levy would be separate from, and possibly in addition to, the tariffs on shipments from individual countries. If companies keep buying up copper for fear of future tariffs, that could create an "upward squeeze," Gower said. But the supply-demand picture could also change quickly and pull prices down instead. "Already in April, China exported 77kt of copper, and this will likely have continued in May/June, which may provide some relief to LME inventories. On top [of that], the strong solar installations (+70% YTD in Jan-April) are expected to slow from June as new power tariffs come in ... while U.S. demand will slow if copper tariffs are announced," Gower said. — CNBC's Michael Bloom contributed reporting.
CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's CFTC pick calls for comprehensive crypto rules in nomination hearing: CNBC Crypto World
On today's episode of CNBC Crypto World, major cryptocurrencies climb as investors wait for more insight on trade discussions between the U.S. and China. Plus, Brian Quintenz, President Trump's pick to lead the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, prepares to testify before the Senate. And, Matt Hougan, Bitwise Asset Management CIO, discusses the launch of the asset manager's new GameStop-focused covered call ETF.
Business Insider
28 minutes ago
- Business Insider
An internal NY Times memo took a swipe at other news orgs after Baldoni's libel case was dismissed
The New York Times took a swipe at its media brethren as it celebrated the dismissal of Justin Baldoni's libel suit against the paper. David McCraw, deputy general counsel for the Times, shared an internal memo Tuesday on Slack saying the paper stood by its reporting on the case and was confident the dismissal would hold up if there's a further review. Then he pivoted: "One final thought: At a time when other news organizations are deciding to settle baseless claims rather than stand up for press freedom in court, the Baldoni decision is a good reminder that The Times has decided that just the opposite approach is needed at this moment in American history." The memo didn't mention any names but seemed to take aim at a couple of recent high-profile cases. Disney's ABC News in December reached a $16 million settlement with Donald Trump, who was at that time the president-elect. Trump had sued the network over comments by star anchor George Stephanopoulos, who falsely said Trump had been found "liable for rape" in a suit brought by the columnist E. Jean Carroll. The New York jury had actually found him liable for "sexual abuse." Some lawyers have said they thought ABC News could have fought the suit, as BI previously reported. McCraw could also have been referring to CBS parent Paramount, which The Wall Street Journal reported is in talks to settle its own $20 billion legal battle with Trump. Last year, Trump sued CBS's "60 Minutes" over its pre-election interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Some legal experts consider the case to be without merit, as BI previously reported, but Paramount is eager to get regulatory approval to complete its long-awaited deal to sell to Hollywood production company Skydance. It's worth noting that the ABC and CBS cases differ significantly from Baldoni's suit against the Times. The Times wasn't being sued by a sitting president, and legal experts previously told BI that they viewed Baldoni's case as weak from a libel standpoint. ABC and CBS didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. In a separate statement, a Times spokesperson also called the Baldoni suit "a meritless attempt to stifle honest reporting." Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, acknowledged in a statement that the court dismissed the defamation-related claims. He would not confirm to BI if Baldoni would refile, but suggested he plans to do so. "Our journalists went out and covered carefully and fairly a story of public importance, and the court recognized that the law is designed to protect just that sort of journalism," the Times spokesperson said. "We will continue to stand up in court for our journalism and for our journalists when their work comes under attack." The case has an impact beyond the Times Lawyers who have followed the case told BI that the ruling had significance beyond the Times. In Baldoni's $400 million defamation case, he argued that the Times, Lively, and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, conspired to destroy his career with false allegations. Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation. Media lawyers and PR pros previously told BI they saw the battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively as part of a bigger trend of prominent figures using lawsuits to change public opinion. A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor. George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, said the dismissal of Baldoni's suit against the Times affirms basic press defenses. The judge referenced that the paper was permitted to report on public documents. Freeman also said he found it interesting that the judge concluded that the Times "had no obvious motive to favor" Lively's version of the events. Despite the victory, the case is a reminder of the threat lawsuits pose to media outlets. Many states have media shield laws to discourage baseless defamation cases. But such laws don't always prevent lawsuits from being filed, and they can be burdensome for media outlets — especially those without the resources of the Times. Damon Dunn, a First Amendment attorney at Clark Hill, said that Baldoni succeeded in getting his side of the story out. And the ruling was a victory for news, but with an asterisk. "The ruling reinforces their leeway to report complex stories when confronted with conflicting or ambiguous evidence, but it also demonstrates that, win or lose, high-profile litigation drains away newsgathering resources," he said. Here's McCraw's full memo: I'm sure by now you have all seen the good news about yesterday's decision to dismiss the libel case against The New York Times that was filed by actor Justin Baldoni and his associates. Our journalists went out and covered carefully and fairly a story of public importance, and the court recognized that the law is designed to protect just that sort of journalism. We will continue to stand up in court for our journalism and for our journalists when their work comes under attack. Blake Lively went to a California civil rights agency to lodge an official complaint that she had been discriminated against by Justin Baldoni and his associates during the filming of "It Ends With Us" and that they had launched a smear campaign to harm her after the release of the movie. The public has a right to know about official proceedings brought before a government agency, which is why the law in every state protects journalists when they report on an official proceeding. We also reviewed in our reporting a trove of internal messages among Baldoni and his team, which showed that they were behind the online smear campaign launched against Lively. As the judge said, those messages fully supported the facts we presented in our coverage detailing Baldoni's attempt to take Lively down online. Baldoni and his Hollywood lawyers obviously thought they could use the courts to undermine that reporting; they were wrong. If the plaintiffs decide to appeal, we are confident that today's decision dismissing The Times will stand up on any further review.
