Quote:
Originally Posted by slazLA
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfoundnemo
Quote:
Originally Posted by WER2XU
|
Definitely would have made people feel better about it if they could have put some extra money down to get to the 5%. Of course, that's just an example, so hopefully whatever language their dealers came up with was strong enough to say that more than their <5% deposit was at risk. |
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this was seriously one of the most rushed processes I can remember. In the IRS's defense, they were put in a bind here by the language Congress approved. Why in the world did Congress need to say "written binding agreement" and not just "written agreement" or "ordered before bill enactment date" in the Transition Rule. The language was not well thought out (or maybe it was if the their goal was to limit number of the people getting the credit…).
So the IRS is in a bind trying to enforce the language of the bill Congress passed, but I agree issuing guidance when it was too late to do anything about it is infuriating. |
You hit the nail on the head with purposely limiting the number of credits. Manchin wanted no credits and the shit show we now have was the compromise to gain his vote to pass the bill. So it is complicated by design. And it is pro American on purpose with the final assembly clause and the battery chemistry stipulation.