Jun 12, 2012
DavidM One thing that nobody mentioned yet on this thread. I would not assume that the $7,500 credit will be available to customers who take delivery in 2013. Right now, we know for sure that it is available for purchases in 2012. But 2013 is not guarantee. It's an election year too, and the challenger's pick for energy advisor is a billionaire oil man. Draw your own conclusions.�
Jun 12, 2012
daniel [mod note: split posting between two threads - this was originally posted here.]
I've always said it does not make sense to give a $7,500 tax break to people who can afford a $50,000 car. And worse to give it to someone who can afford a $70,000 or $100,000 car. I'll take whatever they'll give me, and I was delighted with the $7,500 tax break on my Roadster (and no sales tax on new EV purchases in my state, which amounted to about $8,000 for my car) but giving money to rich people makes no sense. We all think we're entitled to perks for being EV pioneers and early adopters, but society would benefit more from spending that money on public chargers, or education, or battery research.�
Jun 12, 2012
ElSupreme I'm really hoping for the $7,500 credit. It will still make this car expensive. I will be able to pay for it either way. But if the credits last I'll be getting $7,500 from the Feds, and $5,000 from Georgia. And I would put all of that down towards a new kitchen, or a ground source (geo-thermal for those non-picky non-engineer types) heat pump for my house. Upgraded insulation is going in this summer. And maybe windows after I pay off my car loan :wink:.�
Jun 12, 2012
jomo25 If only that's where the money would go.�
Jun 12, 2012
Bardlebee You make a very valid point and I didn't think of it like that. Though I do wish they would push for more EV tech and I suppose that was just my reaction to taking the support away.�
Jun 12, 2012
Lloyd One thing that everyone should consider when deciding to take delivery this year. Make sure that you will have at least a $7,500 federal tax liability. If you do not in 2012 you may want to delay delivery until 2013 or another year to be able to take advantage of the credit.�
Jun 12, 2012
daniel Yep. The credit only goes to people rich enough to have that much tax liability. Someone who makes the stretch to buy an EV but has less than $7,500 tax liability, doesn't get the full benefit. That's our legislators at work: making sure poor folks don't benefit from programs intended to help the rich. I'd have bought my Roadster even without the tax credit, so the government just gave me $7,500 for nothing. (Or about $15,500 if you include my state's sales tax exemption.) I'm happy to get it, but poor folks have a right to be angry about it. I'm not in the top 1%, but the basic idea applies. I got that money because I'm rich enough that I don't need it.�
Jun 12, 2012
todd6678 So to mitigate the tax issue, one quick remedy is change your W2 if need be, to have 0 dependents. You will receive more cash in your weekly paycheck (or pay less if you own your own business) thereby owing the government more money at the end of the year. You then get to subtract the full amount...if you're making enough.
I'd be interested in a poll showing how many people are actually cancelling, however I'm guessing that the large majority is just deferring, otherwise they probably wouldn't be here anymore.�
Jun 12, 2012
Lloyd Todd, you did not understand,,,,, If your net tax liability to the feds is not at least $7500 regardless of witholding you will not get the benefit of the credit.�
Jun 12, 2012
onlinespending That would be highly unlikely for someone able to afford this car, as your income would need to be extremely low to owe less than $7500 to the IRS. That would really only apply to those that are sitting on a large savings but were out of work much of this year.�
Jun 12, 2012
todd6678 No, I did. That's why I said "if you're making enough"�
Jun 12, 2012
jomo25 Todd, you're logic as stated is flawed. It matter not at all how much you deduct out of your weekly paycheck via withholding. It only matters how much you make in total and your total tax owed for the year. Not net of your withholding. If that's what you meant, as you try to indicate in the subsequent post, then you shouldn't have said anything about the withholding amount. It isn't relevant at all.�
Jun 12, 2012
Lloyd Well, I make pleanty, but I have a business loss from years ago that leaves me with no net tax liability to the Feds. California does not allow you to carry forward any loss! I will not get the benefit of the credit.�
Jun 12, 2012
gg_got_a_tesla This might help: A $7,500 Federal Tax Credit? Not for Joe Sixpack - Consumer Guide Automotive
Back on topic, is Sunset Red worth waiting for?! Looking forward to the Fremont event (if I get an invite) or atleast pics to see how that looks. If early enough in 2013 (say, February at the latest), I'll promptly go for standard coil suspension too and push my (60 kWh) delivery out from November - that'd also be 3 years from when I put in a deposit!�
Jun 12, 2012
todd6678 Jomo25 my logic is spot on. I said, and I quote again, "If you're make enough". Implying you have to make enough to withhold. 7.5k That would be, just a guess, 45k a year?
Sorry if the doesn't make sense to you.�
Jun 12, 2012
onlinespending can you delay claiming the loss to offset gains in a future year? This way you take the EV tax credit this year instead of offsetting your prior losses.�
Jun 12, 2012
jomo25 With no $7,500 credit, could you still afford to buy?
Suggest you read the whole thread. Kroneal and Transl8r spell it out.�
Jun 12, 2012
todd6678 No onlinespeeding. The Ins and Outs of Electric Vehicle Tax Credits - Edmunds.com
Sorry gg and sorry if that is posted in the other thread.
There is no refund, as stated, only a credit.�
Jun 12, 2012
todd6678 kroneal
Signature 513
Join Date
Dec 2011
Location
The Rockies
Posts
124
Trnsl8r is right. Total tax before payments or withholding needs to be greater than $7,500 to get the full credit. I won't even get into the credit ordering rules. Consult your tax advisor.
As I stated, there is only a credit and no refund. You will not receive a check from the government for any amount over what you tax liability may be.�
Jun 12, 2012
jomo25 Holy cow, you just don't get it. I agree and have clearly stated I agree that you won't get a refund if 7500 is over your tax liability. What you don't get is that the tax liability is not affected in any way shape or form by your withholding as your original message implies.
Answer this simple scenario:
My income is 80K.
My taxes owed for the year as calculated on my 1040 is 26K prior to claiming the EV credit.
I withheld $1K as part of my paycheck every 2 weeks during the year.
When I file my taxes and claim the EV credit. Will I get $7500 check from the Treasury?
The answer is YES.�
Jun 12, 2012
todd6678 No. The treasury will not send any check to you. Period.
Read gg's web link. It states it flat out.�
Jun 12, 2012
jomo25 You're only reading half of the story. I suggest you re-read this passage:
The IRS tax table states that the �Married Filing Jointly� tax on $39,850 is $5,124. Thus, the Sixpacks qualify for a $5,124 tax credit on their new Volt--not $7,500. The good news is that this is real money. If the amount of federal income tax the Sixpacks owed on April 15 was otherwise $0, the IRS would send them a refund check of $5,124. If they otherwise owed $1,000, they�d get a check for $4,124. If they otherwise were due a $1,000 refund, they�d get $6,124.
Bottom line: in my simple example above. I would get a refund check for $7500.
Note: Mods, this is extended conversation from private messages also. I continued to post here so others can chime in, because todd refuses to believe me on this. So, it might be best to merge into the Tax thread I linked above.�
Jun 13, 2012
Trnsl8r Since my name was mentioned up-thread, I'll chime in. Jomo's example is spot on and completely correct (assuming it relates to federal taxes).�
Jun 13, 2012
NuclearPowered The only thing withholding less then normal would do is allow one to capture the value of the credit in the tax year instead of waiting till refunds to get it back.
The credit reduces your liability 1:1 at tax time.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2�
Jun 13, 2012
daniel The IRS will send a refund check if you paid too much withholding or estimated tax. What they won't do is send you a check that effectively lowers your total tax for the year below zero. You might want to lower your withholding to eliminate the hassle of paying withholding and then getting a refund. But eligibility for the tax credit is based on your total tax liability, and has nothing to do with the amount of your withholding or estimated tax payments.
Examples:
Say your total tax had you not bought the car would have been $6,000 and your withholding was $7,000. You don't buy the car so you get a refund of $1,000. But if you did buy the car, you'd get a refund of the entire amount of your withholding, which is $7,000. You would not get $7,500 because that would have reduced your total tax below zero.
Now, say that your total tax if you had not bought the car is $6,000 but you paid no withholding. You would owe $6,000. But if you did buy the car you would owe no tax, and would get no refund, because a refund would reduce your total tax below zero.
In both the above cases, if you did buy the car, your actual tax is zero because the $7,500 tax credit is more than what your tax would have been had you not bought it.
Now say that your total tax, without buying the car, is $10,000 and your withholding is $11,000. The IRS sends you a refund of $1,000. But if you do buy the car, the IRS sends you $8,500 which means that you actually pay $2,500 in tax, or $7,500 less than if you had not bought the car.
If your total tax without buying the car is $10,000 and you had no withholding, you owe the IRS $10,000 if you don't buy the car, but you only owe them $2,500 if you do buy the car.
In both the above cases, you pay the same amount of tax in the end.
When the tax law says that the tax credit is not refundable, it does not mean that the IRS will send no check. It means that the credit cannot reduce your total tax below zero. You also cannot carry it over to the next year.�
Jun 13, 2012
jomo25 The issue was that Todd was misunderstanding (as many people do) that the TOTAL TAX LIABILITY is TOTAL TAX BILL as calculated on your 1040. It isn't the difference that you happen to owe or be owed between your total tax liability as calculated on the 1040 and the amount you had for withholding as a result of your W2 entries.
His original post above would indicate he believes that he could affect his eligibility for the of the credit by changing his W2 dependents/withholding.
In reality, this has no effect. It can only as mentioned above impact your "cash flow" by "getting the money early" in installments via less withholding per pay check.
And if your withholding during the year is more than the total tax liability with the credit, yes, you will get a refund check.
Many people misunderstand this. I kept at it with him to help dispel the myth.�
Jun 13, 2012
todd6678 I'm all for it helping in any way possible, don't get me wrong. Though I don't believe anyone making more than twice the national average income should be allowed to collect a tax benefit, being that it's an EV and I love EV's I can look the other way .�
Jun 13, 2012
Lloyd Todd, that leaves a pretty narrow catagory of people that would be able to participate in the EV program at all. >50% don't make enough to qualify fully, and 2X national average would take away another 25%!�
Jun 13, 2012
NigelM Maybe the title of this thread should be changed? It started off being about options but seems like it turned into a tax debate about 30 posts back.�
Jun 13, 2012
todd6678 Indeed. The 25% of people who are making more than twice the national average could easier afford to buy an EV from Tesla, without the tax credit. It would have been nice to see it scalable to give more money back to individuals who made less money but wanted an EV, while the ones who made more money received less. So, if you make 125k with no dependents or something, you get no credit, if you make 60k, you get 15k rebate.
It just seems like congress could have done the tax a little different to try and help everyone out and sell more EV's. And off my soap box I go.�
Jun 13, 2012
Lloyd U.S. Median Annual Wage Falls To $26,364 As Pessimism Reaches 10-Year High [CORRECTION]�
Jun 13, 2012
onlinespending it really should just be split. The original topic of the thread covers some good things to consider, if you're patient enough to wait. The tax credit related discussion would be a good topic by itself.�
Jun 13, 2012
brianman I fearfully tread into this off-topic, but it might be worth stating...
Assumptions:
(1) What's being suggested is that the tax credit either -a- not apply for incomes above some amount or -b- that it be scaled downward as your income bracket goes up.
(2) Lloyd is saying in the above quote that that would imply that all the folks that can afford the Model S would be least qualified for a noticeable tax credit.
(3) Lloyd is hinting at the conclusion that it would make the tax credit program for EVs self-neutering in a sense because of (2).
If you look through the prism of the Model S, that may be true.
If you look through the prism of "cheaper EVs", that's not true.�
Jun 14, 2012
todd6678 Household Income Falls, Poverty Rate Rises - WSJ.com�
Jun 14, 2012
daniel Yes, they could. They could also make rich people pay their fair share of tax. They could require that employers pay workers enough to live on. But Congresspeople are wealthy, or else in debt to the wealthy for their campaign money. So they don't want to help the poor. They want to help the rich. People in government are not stupid or inept. They are doing what benefits themselves and their backers.
We're lucky they're doing anything for EVs at all. The next administration probably won't.�
Jun 14, 2012
AnOutsider Not to go TOO far off topic, but I don't think this is their call to make. Sure, some corporations skimp out when they can afford not to, but what about small businesses just trying to stay afloat? Minimum wage exists, if the employer is not going below that, then let them be. Otherwise we'll see more small businesses failing because on top of all the other crap that gets piled onto their backs, they now have to spend every dime they can earn, beg and borrow making sure the guy who couldn't care less about their long term success is paid what the government says he should be, not necessarily what's sustainable.�
Jun 14, 2012
dsm363 Until there is massive tax reform (eliminating the loopholes and tax deductions people love so much) to even things out, I'd say keep the EV tax credits. The people who would most benefit from the tax credit aren't likely to buy an EV even with the credit at this point (Leaf is only affordable EV at this point). If the tax credit broadens the market and brings cars like the base Model S into play, this is a good thing. Early adopters are almost always in the upper income brackets and enough people need to buy a product to drive the cost down and make it more affordable. It should be a credit at purchase anyway, not a tax credit based on taxable income.�
Jun 14, 2012
kevincwelch
I really take issue with this statement.
Not everyone who is buying a Model S is rich. Some of us have been saving for three years, will have to trade in a car and still have to finance the rest.
Secondly, almost paradoxically, EV cars are expensive. If people with means don't initiate the purchasing of these vehicles, there will be little market and little incentive to make them more affordable. So, who else other than the wealthy well buy these?
Lastly, the government makes the rules of the game, and I play the game.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2�
Jun 14, 2012
kevincwelch I pay 1/3 of my income in the form of taxes. My taxes on my home are criminal. I pay my "fair" share.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2�
Jun 14, 2012
bonnie I pay a great deal to subsidize the oil companies so others can drive ICE vehicles (those wars are expensive). If others had to pay the true cost of the gasoline that goes in the engine, we'd be having a different conversation (like 'does anyone still drive an ICE anymore???')
I look at the $7500 as a small step towards leveling the playing field.�
Jun 14, 2012
dsm363 I agree. The people whining about the EV tax credit have no problems paying so little at the pump and receiving those benefits but have a problem with trying to level the playing field. I wouldn't mind a $5,000 tax credit and a $2,500 amount given to the EV manufacturer (set up in separate account only for this purpose) for them to set up and support their own charging network as they see fit.�
Jun 14, 2012
Lloyd I have the most fair and simple tax system: Do away with the IRS, income tax, corporate tax and many other taxes as excise tax etc. I propose a ballanced budget and a national sales tax. The sales tax rate would be adjusted every year to ballance the budget determined by the amount that the government spent in the previous year. Exempt food and healthcare to allow the poor to function and survive. I propose a 5 year phase in to allow a transition from the current tax system.
Think of the benefits:
Encourage work and savings by allowing workers to keep everything they earn
encourage repatriation of foreign corporate funds
eliminate our outdated tax system of exemptions and deductions
Eliminate the need for individual tax returns and much IRS enforcement
Stronger Dollar
Corporations pay thier fair share
Teach government officials not to overspend by having immediate consequences
This list can go on and on:�
Jun 14, 2012
vfx To clarify, it was the last administration that set up the federal tax credit for EV purchase program. States vary on that. In CA it has expired and been reinstated a few times since the original, though now less $.
The current administration has given loans to EV makers to get them propped up so they can compete with the other industries that are (and have been) getting helped for decades.* It's not just about rich people, it's another way to help EV manufacturers. A carbon tax on cars might be the best way to do this, but taxes on cars or gasoline is a political hot potato.
*And in the case of energy, oil has had a helping hand from Uncle Sam for a hundred years and have gotten so big they don't even care about the US anymore. They have grown to be world companies looking at the earth as their sandbox, The trifle the feds dole to wind and solar now is laugable in the big picture.�
Jun 14, 2012
goyogi I agree with much of this. And get rid of oil subsidies and let the gas prices rise to $6-8/gallon naturally and we won't need the $7500 tax break.�
Jun 14, 2012
ddruz This is a question for any tax attorneys or CPAs in the audience: IF a new administration takes office and decides to revise the tax code to eliminate the $7500 tax credit on EVs at what point would you reasonably expect the revision to become effective? My understanding is it would take an act of Congress to revise the code (please correct me if that is incorrect) which takes some time. If they started Jan 1 what is a reasonable length of time for such a bill to pass? Then once passed is it more reasonable to assume it will be retroactive to Jan 1 or will take effect at the time it passes? How are such tax revisions usually implemented--immediately or retroactively?
These questions are directed at determining the probability of a "grace period" after Jan 1 during which the $7500 tax credit might still exists even IF a new administration takes over. There may be a number of us who are stretching for this car whose number will come up this year but would rather not buy the air suspension and/or 60 kwh battery. It would really help to better understand the probabilities involved in losing the tax credit by waiting to get what we want and can better afford. Thanks.�
Jun 14, 2012
Lloyd Yes, as a result of ballancing the budget, all subsidies would need to be phased out. Some such as the oil subsidies should be eliminated immediately.�
Jun 14, 2012
AnOutsider Not sure making the folks who struggle to get along as-is struggle even harder is the right course of action. Sure, it makes EVs look more attractive, but by changing the rules of the game in their favor, not on their own merits. Sure, we have subsidies in place that likely need to end, but not for the reason of making EVs look more attractive. We need to get EVs in more hands to slowly reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that when the subsidies DO get yanked, it doesn't cause a national crisis.�
Jun 14, 2012
Robert.Boston On a slightly different tangent:
A tax (or tax credit) doesn't fall entirely on the person who pays the tax (or receives the credit). If you raise the tax on, say, cigarettes, part of the tax is borne by smokers and part by the tobacco companies. (See the Wikipedia article on Tax Incidence.) Likewise, the EV credit does not just benefit EV buyers; it also benefits EV manufacturers, who are able to sell more cars at higher prices. The particular form of the U.S. EV credit, however, is inefficient because some buyers can't use the credit.
btw, tax liability and income are not necessarily closely linked. Someone with a large holding of tax-free bonds may have a very low tax burden, for example.�
Jun 14, 2012
Warrenbonz Well said.�
Jun 14, 2012
vfx How much is Bonnie paying each year?
http://www.350.org/sites/all/files/end_polluter_welfare_act_section_by_section.pdf�
Jun 14, 2012
brianman No, that's last quarter's meaningless term. There's a new one now that I've already forgotten because I've tuned them out.�
Jun 14, 2012
bonnie Holy @()*!!#*&!�
Jun 14, 2012
daniel Minimum wages are set by law. The legislature chooses whether to set it high enough to live on or not. Throughout history, employers have argued that higher wages will put them out of business, but in fact, fair minimum wages have always been good for the economy. The gap between rich and poor is greatest where minimum wages are lowest. And Santa Fe, NM, has a healthy and vibrant economy with one of the strongest (local) living wage laws in the country.
For me, it's a human rights issue: Nobody should be allowed to pay someone at a rate that is insufficient to live on, assuming a full-time job, or pro-rating accordingly.
And the strongest opponents of living wage laws are giant companies like Walmart, which treat their employees abysmally, fight unions tooth and nail, and rake in obscene profits.
I agree 100%. We need to eliminate all subsidies on petroleum and tax it at its true cost, including oil-spill clean-ups and the full cost of oil wars.
A sales tax is the most regressive, placing the most burden on the poorest people. The wealthy benefit proportionally more than the poor from the economic and social system. It is only fair that they pay their fair share. That's why we have a graduated income tax. In theory, the greater your income, the higher percentage you pay. In practice, because the laws are written to favor the rich, they pay less than they should.
Example: Wages earned by labor are taxed at roughly twice the rate of income gotten without labor. (Capital gains).
I say we should keep the graduated income tax, but eliminate all exemptions, deductions, etc., and tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, if not higher. The 1040 would have about 4 lines on it: What was your income? Look up your tax on the graduated rate table. Enter the amount. That's your tax.
BTW, I pay a bucketload of money in taxes, and I hate doing it. But I recognize that it's the price I pay for living in society. My complaint is not that I have to pay, but that so much of it is going to wars to subsidize the wasteful destruction of our resources and the planet.�
Jun 14, 2012
digitaltim Small countries could live off what my wife and I pay in taxes...no complaints, but believe a more fair system could be developed with a graduated sales tax. No tax on food/clothes below a certain cost per unit, but higher taxes on luxury or other discretionary goods/services.
Taxes on income are ridiculous.�
Jun 14, 2012
brianman Daniel, what's the motivation for the dependents deduction? And do you think it should stay in place or be eliminated as part of "all deductions"?�
Jun 14, 2012
ElSupreme That is basically what I would do.
Income (line1 W2): 1 Million Dollars
Tax Witheld (other line W2): 1 Hundred Thousand Dollars
Tax Owed (lookup line 1, in chart): 4 Hundred Thousand Dollars
You Owe (subtract 2 from 3): 3 Hundred Thousand Dollars (sucks to be you)�
Jun 14, 2012
gg_got_a_tesla I have the same concern (posted here: Delaying Delivery of Model S / Waiting until other options become available).
The flip side would be if Democrats do a clean sweep and get around to making the tax credit a tax rebate up front at the point of sale let alone raise it to $10,000 as President Obama suggested, waiting may have its benefits!!�
Jun 14, 2012
Lloyd One repub congressman who has a vested interest in ICE manufacturing has called for removal of the credit. I was unable to find any instance of that being a party or candidate goal.�
Jun 14, 2012
Arnold Panz Issues like this generally aren't in either party platform because votes are much more often based on local economic pressures, such as whether petroleum/oil is a big industry in the area, or ICE vehicle production occurs locally, or EVs are made in the district (Volts and Teslas being two examples). As VFX noted, the original credit was put in place during a Republican adminstration with much bipartisan support, which is the same as the program that paid for Tesla's loan.
The highest probability is that nothing will happen on this one way or another (to increase it, make it an instant rebate or eliminate it) because it would require Congressional action, and Congress is so dysfunctional right now that virtually nothing can get through. This isn't a terrible outcome under the circumstances because there's just as good a likelihood of the credit being killed altogether as it being increased or made an instant rebate on the purchase price.�
Jun 14, 2012
strider In my experience changes like this apply to the next tax year. So if in September, 2013 they eliminate the credit the earliest it could take effect is the 2014 tax year (Jan 1, 2014).�
Jun 14, 2012
Bardlebee Though I am sure its not the cause, I like that Tesla shows the full amount of the vehicle when your in the design studio. It makes them seem at least truthful, though I pity those who don't read the fine print sometimes.�
Jun 14, 2012
jerry33 I agree with two exceptions:
1) Corporations pay thier fair share
Basically a tax on companies is just a hidden tax to the consumer--unless you don't think that businesses pass on the cost of tax.
2) Exempt food and healthcare:
I'd except education and educational materials as well. The more educated the populace the better a democracy works. Making education affordable is the best way to raise the standard of living.�
Jun 14, 2012
Kipernicus While I don't disagree, I think that these well intentioned exemptions (the iPad is educational!) are the slippery slope that landed the tax code where it is today.
But back on topic, does the $7500 credit have an income based phase-out? If your AGI is over X do you still get the full $7500 benefit?
A slightly related question - will AMT wipe out the benefit?�
Jun 14, 2012
daniel I presume the motivation for the dependents deduction is to encourage people to have more kids. Politicians like more taxpayers just as preachers like more congregants, And yes, I would eliminate it along with all other deductions.
Government can support programs directly, The problem with using the tax code to support national goals is that deductions can be manipulated to benefit people who are not actually helping the goal; and indirect subsidies via the tax code are impossible to assess via accounting. What's the cost vs. benefit? Direct subsidies can be accounted so we know the cost. Nobody really knows the cost when the subsidy is via a tax deduction, credit, or exemption.
Absolutely agree!!!!! That's why I'd make all education free. Technical as well as Academic. And as noted above, I'd set the minimum wage at a living wage. It is scandalous when people in the wealthiest nation on Earth can work full time and yet be unable to afford to house and feed their family. I'd also make all health care free.�
Jun 14, 2012
daniel The $7,500 tax credit is not affected by AMT. It is subtracted from your income before AMT is calculated. And there's no phase-out from income at high levels. As noted, you lose all or part if your tax liability is too low. But you can have an income of a hundred million dollars a year, and as long as your tax liability if $7,500 or more, you get the credit.
Some deductions get cut when you have a high income. Not the EV tax credit.�
Jun 14, 2012
brianman That was my presumption as well. Furthermore, if encouraging population growth is the motivation, abortions should count as -1 dependents for ~18 years.�
Jun 14, 2012
Lloyd I agree, but corporations must have to compete fairly with individuals in small business. Not taxing them puts them at an unfair advantage. They need to pay on plant, equipment etc as do the rest of us under a national sales tax
+1 as long as the universities don't take advantage of being 'tax exempt' and take that as profit. Making student loans readily available has caused 'tuition inflation' in the past!�
Jun 14, 2012
sp4rk When Tesla unleashes leasing, the tax credit is different.
When I got my Leaf, I leased instead of buying and "they" put the $7,500 down as the down payment.
Otherwise I'd not have gotten anywhere near all the tax credit.
I cannot believe the tax breaks the fossil fuels companies get ... as Bonnie eloquently replied ... holy &*^(*!�
Jun 14, 2012
jerry33 Are there any small businesses that don't incorporate?
That's true, but the alternative (other than having almost unaffordable tuition) is to have the government give the money to the Universities. This wouldn't be bad except that it always leads to "approved curriculum"--"You want government funds, you teach what we tell you". Of course, if the schools didn't spend 90% of their budget on sports... but that's another rant.�
Jun 14, 2012
jerry33 My guess is that they will keep the credit intact and take the credit for it.�
Jun 14, 2012
brianman Well that's a double-edged sword, now isn't it?
If they cancel the credit, they get the blame.
If they retain the credit, they get no credit.
Double standard?�
Jun 14, 2012
SByer Sure, the gas and oil company subsidies need to be eliminated. Doing that overnight would be a horrendous wrench in the economy; and here is where governments have a particular skill set (that they just seem to consistently fail to exercise) - think long term and smooth these thing out over 5-10 years. We should have started doing that with gas and oil 40 years ago <<insert Jon Stewart video link here>>.
As for education, while I think a 'good' education through college should be free, it should at least be through a voucher system (as should grade school education), and should not completely cover the most expensive schools. There needs to be some skin from those getting the vouchers to ensure they are actually utilized. But certainly, that can't be worse than the current union-controlled no-performance-measured centrally controlled system that, even then, still doesn't have enough power to prevent the intelligent design wackos from dumbing down the science textbooks. That's the trick, isn't it? Provide the best opportunity for equality and self-starters possible while minimizing potential abuses of the system (I consider the anti-science bent in the school systems in some parts of the country - hi Texas! - as abuse).
On topic:
I estimate based on average car mileage (25mpg), the subsidy per gallon (~>$4/gal), and the typical miles driven per year (12-15k), the EV subsidy gets 'used up' in about 3-4 years. I'm near or past the 'no subsidy' point, so don't tell me how EVs are subsidized!�
Jun 14, 2012
Doug_G Yes, that would be a Sole Proprietorship.�
Jun 14, 2012
gg_got_a_tesla We are getting into some hairy territory here, atleast for this forum. My take on this is that population growth (and any Govt. measures to encourage it) is a problem and not just for the Third World; there's enormous pressure being put on resources, sustainability and economic growth at the macro level while also creating a pool of folks who are essentially 'handicapped' at birth - born to poorer parents with more mouths to feed and not enough of a chance to get as well as provide a good education to improve their lot. The vicious cycle continues in an exponential manner
Way off topic... Sorry.�
Jun 15, 2012
brianman @gg_wants_a_tesla - You didn't bring it to this branch, so you can relax.
Regarding the general off-topic... terms like "fair" and "right"/"wrong" are where such branches of discussion come from.�
Jun 15, 2012
Beavis Here is your answer with regard to any upcoming tax changes. According to our firm's legislative experts, there will be no action prior to November. After the election, the lame duck session will be focused on the debt limit debate and the automatic spending cuts. Everything will be on the table in terms of getting an agreement and nobody has any idea what will happen. Once an agreement on the debt limit is reached, nothing else will be accomplished in the lame duck. The next session of Congress? Your guess is as good as mine. Everything is on the table.�
Jun 15, 2012
daniel Today, the tuition "MSRP" of universities is much higher than the average actually paid. Universities want to balance their student mix, so if they need you to balance their mix, and you cannot afford "full" tuition, they offer you a discount. In some ways this is good, as it allows more poor students to get an education; in some ways it's bad, as it makes students pay more than the real cost if they can afford it. But even so, the cost is so high that most students graduate with oppressive debt. As Jerry noted earlier, an educated country is a stronger country, so we all benefit when more kids can get an education. And when adults can get an education when their job disappears due to changing technology or economics. So we all benefit from universal free education paid for by a graduated income tax.�
Jun 15, 2012
ddruz kroneal, Thank you for checking with your firm's legislative experts. Much appreciated in addition to the other information provided by other members here.�
Jun 15, 2012
artsci Actually, at most private colleges and universities and even many publics, especially those with sizable endowments, nobody, not even so-called "full' payers pay the actual full costs. Endowment income and gifts from alumni and other donors subsidize a fraction of costs for all. At some top private universities if the full real cost was actually charged to students it would be more like $80,000 a year. So everybody, including the most affluent students who think they're paying the "full" costs, are actually receiving financial support, a discount if you will, made possible by the generosity of current and previous generations.�
Jun 15, 2012
pguerra Someone please correct me here:
The risk of the $7,500 tax credit expiring due to Obama or lame duck Congress letting it expire at the end of this year is a far greater possibility than Tesla selling it's 200,000th car by 1st qtr 2013 (When I'm slated to receive Model S).
If the above is true, how likely will it be that in 2013, the credit will end due to gov't allowing it to expire, not renewing it, etc?
THANK YOU.�
Jun 15, 2012
gg_got_a_tesla There's no expiry date on this one and hence does not need to be renewed explicitly:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=214841,00.html
An unlikely repeal through an act of Congress with the President's signature is a different matter.�
Jun 15, 2012
pguerra Thanks a bunch for showing this link. I guess it is safe to assume that a Model S purchased in 1st qtr 2013 would qualify for $7,500 tax credit (assuming buyers tax liability supports it).
GREAT.
Now, I just have to have some more patience...�
Jun 15, 2012
gg_got_a_tesla For completeness, Form 8936 is the one to file for individual tax returns:
Chevy Volt Federal Tax Credit Form 8936 | MyChevroletVolt.com
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf�
Jun 15, 2012
jerry33 We're talking politicians here.�
Jun 15, 2012
jerry33 I realize there is such a thing. I just didn't realize that anyone actually used that kind of model anymore because of all the liability issues and lawsuits that we have these days.�
Jun 15, 2012
strider Yeah, LLC's are way more popular as they are cheap compared to a Sub-S but a lot of people still do SP's - think home businesses.�
Jun 15, 2012
brianman Actually I meant the forum posts (perhaps it was a mixture of people rather than just one person).
I was hearing "it's their fault if they repeal it" as well as "they shouldn't take credit if they don't repeal it". To be consistent, you can't have it both ways.�
Jun 15, 2012
jerry33 I still say: We're talking politicians here. Consistency isn't in any politician's vocabulary (campaign contributions excepted--they are pretty consistent about wanting those).�
Jun 15, 2012
brianman Again, I'm talking about the public (in this case the forum) not the politicians. My point was simply that no matter what they do, the ideological opponents spin it.�
Jun 16, 2012
daniel The greed of politicians is as eternal as death and taxes. :cursing:�
Jul 23, 2012
raptorweb Does any one know how far in the process it has to be before it can be put on this years taxes? If the car is built but not delivered could we get financing/make the full payment to Tesla prior to the end of the year even if delivery happens the start of next?
GG's comment over here made me think of this but I have not seen the answer in my searches.�
Jul 23, 2012
johnnyS Does it matter when you purchase the car? If the purchase date is December 31, do we get full credit for that year? If it is January 31 do we get 11/12 credit for the year? Many credits depend on how much of the year you own the item.
I am a small business owner and with my accountant's help I take full advantage of the system even though I do not agree with all the deductions. The model S will be my business car until it is depreciated even though it is intended to be for my wife.
If Congress makes a change in the EV credit, it is unlikely it will be retroactive---otherwise people will really howl about the change.�
Jul 23, 2012
gg_got_a_tesla This credit seems to apply only for the tax year that the car was actually put into service which would imply registration with the DMV:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf
�
Jul 23, 2012
TEG If you put the car in to service before Dec 31 then you get to claim the credit against that year's taxes (when you file in the following year.)
If you were unlucky enough to get the car registered on January 1st then you would have to wait another year before could claim the credit.
No, you get the whole credit once when you file taxes after the year is over. If you miss the end of one year then you have to wait a whole year before you can claim the credit, but it (has been) the same amount regardless of what month you put the car into service.�
Jul 24, 2012
NigelM No offence intended, but just a word of caution..... Including personal expenses as a business cost can get you in a lot of trouble. If you're using the car for business and only passing it to your wife in a couple of years you're OK.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét