zlacker

> An example, you get a human to sell you a car for $1. Well, absurd!

I've GIVEN away a car for $0. Granted, it needed some work, but it still ran. Some people even pay to have their car taken (e.g. a junker that needs to be towed away).

Before you argue that $0 for a perfectly functional new car is unreasonable, I would point out that game shows and sweepstakes routinely give away cars for $0. And I have seen people on "buy nothing" type groups occasionally give a (admittedly used) car to people in need.

So $0 for a car is not absurd or unreasonable. Perhaps unusual, but not unreasonable.

>>kmoser+(OP)
I think game show prizes aren't that great of an example. There's almost always consideration offered by the contestants in that in return for the $0 prize, they sign over the rights to broadcast and use their likeness in the game show. So it's not that the contestant trades $0 for the prize, it's that they trade $0 + some rights, for the prize. The buy-nothing groups also likely have some kind of tax obligation, though the amounts are likely such that they fall within exemptions.

Also, in contract law, 'unusual' and 'unreasonable' have a very large overlap in their venn diagram.

>>genoci+6t
If a company or individual unrelated to you (e.g. not your employer and not a relative) either gives you a car for free, or sells it to you for $1, with no expectation of anything in return (i.e. not a trade or barter), the only tax obligations are on the actual sales price: the seller must declare they made $0 (or $1) on the sale, and perhaps collect sales tax on the $1, but you as the purchaser are not obligated to pay anything else.

If the seller and buyer are related, tax obligations are different because it involves a gift or implied compensation, but that's not what we're talking about here.

So it is indeed possible to pay no more than $1 for a car. As for registering the title in your name, that's a different story, and has nothing to do with the actual sale.