A year ago I bought a "1 Year Same as Cash" entertainment center. It
was $5,083 - payment is due May 15th.

Today I got a(n unusual) new credit card -- 0% APR on  PURCHASES for
one year (!!!) and 4.9% on balance transfers.

Of course I would like to pay the $5K debt as a PURCHASE, not as a
balance transfer. (The $5K was assigned by the vendor to HRS revolving
credit).

I'm sure there's a way! Anyone know how?

Believe it or not, you are not the first person to try to make a
balance transfer seem like a transfer.  The old trick, that I believe
credit card issuers have caught on to and put an end to, is using the
new card to buy a money order or traveler's checks.  Use the money
order or traveler's checks to pay off the old debt. However, most of
the offers that separate new purchases from balance transfers will not
allow "new purchases" of cash equivalents.

Well, I can think of two options, but can't vouch for the legality of
either. So I'd wait for some input from others on these ideas first.

1. Set up two paypal accounts, link each one to a different card, and
send money from one to the other. You still pay 2.5%-2.9% on the
transaction, but you'd pay less than the interest on the other card.

2. Buy something expensive on your new card with the intent of
returning it. Then see if they'll credit the purchase back to your
original card.

Again both options may well be illegal, and I'm not advocating that
you do either until someone here can vouch for either plan.

Credit card companies pay a fee for all transactions.... I seriously
doubt a vendor would be willing to pay the fee to the purchasing
credit card and then credit it somewhere else.

Thanks all! Of couse the question hasn't been answered exactly, but
the thoughts keep coming... here's an update on my considerations
after reading the comments you've generously posted.

1. What is the (bank) trick here? Usually a card offers a low interest
rate for balance transfers --   high(er) one for purchases. Basic Cub
Scout theory is to open such an account and use it for the balance
transfer, then shred the card... bedause any payments made go to the
LOWEST interest category (usually balance transfers) first.  Thus you
don't ean tto put a few thousand on PURCHASES, 'cuz whatever you then
have to poay each month won;t work to whitle down the higher purchases
rate at all (until the bal., xfr is paid off in full).

2. But here --  we have role reversal, and I wonder if there's a catch
I'm missing.  PURCHASES will be 0% for a year -- balance transfers,
4.9%,and "remain on the books" until the lower, PURCHASES, rate is
paid down! So - you have incentive to buy, buy, buy (0%, 1 year) to
the limit AND NEVER USE IT FOR BALANCE TRANSFERS!!!  :-))

3. I don't mean anything too mnischievous here... it's just I'm
totally taken, intrigued by WHY this card reverses conventional roles
-- between the balance transfer rate and the Purchases rate!!!
Something rotten in Denmark??

I *thought* laet year, when I made that unjustiable (plasma TV,
$5,000) purchase that -- by 12 monmth;'s time, $5k wopuld be pocket
cash to me -- and I was wrong  - (I earn my lioving as an inventor;
sometimes inventions, no matter how compelling, don't pay back for
years!). This bring sme to ANOTHER point abvout the
comments?suggestions received so far; the "time value of money.

Let us say I havea friend with a store that takes credit cards. I
assume he pays 3% off the top to the credit card compnay.... so to get
$5,083 I would pay him (3% extra), or $5,235.  I would pay this $150
immediately.

On the other hand, if I simply let 4.99% ride for a year, startrinmg
Day One of the $5,083 transfer, it would be $255 -- but over the
coursde of a year.

The question then becomes: 

1) for this %5,083 "loan," would I choose paying $150 today over $255
a year from now?

2) Should I keep in  ind any "rules" about using the credit balance
(another $5,000 is available) for 0% purchases?  I may be missing a
very sore thumb in the miodst of this chile.  :-))

Sorry to make such piddlin' stuff so complicated -- it's just that,
with the GTNP of America now nearly half "financial services," I'm
suspicious that - -when a bank makes an offer, it's probably been
sorted through a score of actuaries who've figured out how to...
well....

Thnaks once again to you generous commentors... it's a brain  teaser In think.

Best to all!

Thanks all! Of course the question hasn't been answered exactly, but
those are great thoughts coming... here, after reading the comments 3
of you have generoiusly posted, is an update on my considerations.

1. What is the (bank's) trick likely to be here? 

Usually a card offers a low interest rate for balance transfers --  
high(er) one for purchases. Cub Scout theory is to open such an
account and use it for the balance transfer, then shred the card...
because any payments made go to the LOWEST interest category (usually
any balance transfer) first.  Thus you don't want to put a any money
on PURCHASES, 'cuz whatever you pay won't work to whittle down the
higher purchases rate at all (until the bal., xfr is paid off in full)
in, say, 31 years!

2. But here with this new card we have ROLE REVERSAL, and I wonder if
there's a catch I'm missing.

PURCHASES will be 0% for a year -- 
balance transfers, 4.9%, AND "remain on the books" until the lower,
PURCHASES, balance is paid down in full! So - you have incentive to
buy, buy, buy (0%, 1 year) to the limit amd NEVER USE IT FOR BALANCE
TRANSFERS!?!?!?

3. I don't mean anything larcenous, devious of even mischievious
here... it's just I'm totally taken, intrigued by WHY this card
"reverses conventional roles" )between the balance transfer rate and
the Purchases rate)!!! Something rotten in Denmark??

Truth is, when I made that unjustiable (plasma TV, $5,000) purchase
last year, I (optimist) *thought* that -- by 12 monmth's time -- $5k
would be pocket cash to me. I was wrong  - (I earn my living as an
inventor; sometimes inventions, wvwn ones that are compelling, don't
pay back for years).

So, now to ANOTHER point abvout the comments/suggestions received so
far; the "time value of money.

Let us say I havea friend with a store that takes credit cards. I
assume he pays 3% off the top to the credit card compnay.... so to get
$5,083 I would pay him (3% extra), or $5,235.  I would then have paid
this $150 immediately.

On the other hand, if I simply let 4.99% ride for a year, it would be
$255 -- but over the course of a year. (And once  again, I think
(optimistically) that 12 months from now a $105 difference will be a
pittance, while today $105 is just shy of a Kiung;'s Ranbsom! Time
Value of Money!  :*))

So the question becomes: 

1) for this $5,083 "loan," would I choose paying $150 *today* over
$255 a year from now?

2) Should I keep in mind any "rules" about using the credit balance
(the credit line is $10,000, so an additional $5,000 wouyld appear to
be available for 0% purchases... I may be missing a very sore thumb in
the midst of this chile.  :-))

Sorry to make such piddlin' stuff so complicated -- it's just that,
with the GTNP of America now nearly half "financial services," I'm
suspicious -- when a bank makes an offer, it's probably been sorted
through a score of actuaries who've figured out how to... well...

Thanks once again to you generous commentors... it's a brain teaser I
think. My bounty still stands!

Best to all!