[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by watwywen

5% has never been a practice when placing orders in auto industry and it is just a lousy job from their side to blind apply a prior rule from a different industry, where brokers are also not so much heavily involved I guess.

From another angle, $7500 tax credit to buy cars also has been new to auto industry until recent years.

One reason behind that the $7500 is to entice manufacturers to produce EV cars, instead of handing subsidies directly to manufacturers. Now that the industry is on its feet, the legislators try to incentivize in other ways.

The real issue is that the clause is not extended till end of tax year 2022 so taxpayers can pivot/plan accordingly.

[ppagiga]

same deal here, meredith told me to call her next week

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by pharding

.... and I got my congressman involved.

I wonder how many pick up on this hidden gem.

[OUGrad05]

Originally Posted by bavarianride

I wonder how many pick up on this hidden gem.

Some of us have incompetent congressmen/women.

[ppagiga]

Originally Posted by ppagiga

same deal here, meredith told me to call her next week

I spoke to Meredith. Her only question for me was whether I was following through with purchase

[watwywen]

Originally Posted by ppagiga

I spoke to Meredith. Her only question for me was whether I was following through with purchase

Following through I guess is a good indication that you are serious about buying when delivery happens.

[ppagiga]

Originally Posted by watwywen

Following through I guess is a good indication that you are serious about buying when delivery happens.

Tbh didn’t know intention of asking that question. Maybe to see if people are killing orders because of this ?

[cruzer666]

It's good to know people are taking these steps instead of just complaining about the new legislation on the forum

We've done all we could, people will have to continue to submit this complaint and IRS will either extend the grace period to end of year without a binding contract or not.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by cruzer666

It's good to know people are taking these steps instead of just complaining about the new legislation on the forum

We've done all we could, people will have to continue to submit this complaint and IRS will either extend the grace period to end of year without a binding contract or not.

The IRS cannot do what the law does not provide - August 15 was the last day of the old tax credit guidelines. What the IRS can do is interpret the "writing binding contract" term in a way that can be applied to all 50 states equally.

[cruzer666]

Originally Posted by Technic

The IRS cannot do what the law does not provide - August 15 was the last day of the old tax credit guidelines. What the IRS can do is interpret the "writing binding contract" term in a way that can be applied to all 50 states equally.

Or that !

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by ppagiga

Tbh didn’t know intention of asking that question. Maybe to see if people are killing orders because of this ?

One interpretation is that if the taxpayer already cancels the order, then there will be nothing to talk about.

The IRS guidance does say 5% damage is good enough to be treated as binding for tax purpose, so that's IRS's language to make "written binding contract" applied equally to all states.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by bavarianride

One interpretation is that if the taxpayer already cancels the order, then there will be nothing to talk about.

The IRS guidance does say 5% damage is good enough to be treated as binding for tax purpose, so that's IRS's language to make "written binding contract" applied equally to all states.

5% isn't allowed in California and it has to be refundable.

2.5% before there is a car and my dealer wouldn't even up the deposit to that since it has to go into their trust account and has to be refundable.

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

5% isn't allowed in California and it has to be refundable.

2.5% before there is a car and my dealer wouldn't even up the deposit to that since it has to go into their trust account and has to be refundable.

Yes I did point out >=5% vs. <=2.5% in an early post.

It does feel like an impasse, doesn't it?

My guess is most taxpayers in other states are in similar shoes.

The only ones that can benefit from transition rules are the Fisker direct-order customers that pay up $5k, even Rivian's $100 non-refundable missed the threshold.

[pharding]

The problem is that the IRS published its information after the deadline.

[WER2XU]

Originally Posted by pharding

The problem is that the IRS published its information after the deadline.

Exactly...most people do not put down a 5K deposit on a car that is months away...but if this language had come out when the revised bill came out, many of us would have happily have gone and given the dealer 5K...

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by pharding

The problem is that the IRS published its information after the deadline.

I don't think IRS can publish guidance for tax purpose before a bill is enabled, do u know of any such precedence?

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by bavarianride

Yes I did point out >=5% vs. <=2.5% in an early post.

It does feel like an impasse, doesn't it?

My guess is most taxpayers in other states are in similar shoes.

The only ones that can benefit from transition rules are the Fisker direct-order customers that pay up $5k, even Rivian's $100 non-refundable missed the threshold.

It does feel that way. It also feels that way because they had no idea of restrictions in some states that prohibit binding contacts completely until the deal is done.

Just more government incompetence.

But at least I will get the Fisker One money. No debating that. It was $5k non-refundable in a binding contract.

[OUGrad05]

Heard from the IRS today. I was told this would require a legislative change for the i4 to qualify for the credit moving forward.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by OUGrad05

Heard from the IRS today. I was told this would require a legislative change for the i4 to qualify for the credit moving forward.

Did you tell them they had a keen eye for the obvious?

[scLA]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Did you tell them they had a keen eye for the obvious?

Haha I was told the same thing. Without getting into another debate, here's my take:

IRS needs to enforce what the bill says. IRS has issued guidance for what constitutes a written, binding contract, but they also made clear that what constitutes a written, binding contract could vary from state to state.

That leaves open the door that the determinants for having a written, binding contract to purchase a car in CA could vary from those in NY or any other state.

I'm going to end it there and just remind everyone that most people on this forum are not lawyers and not accountants and everyone's opinion is just that, an opinion.

[cruzer666]

Originally Posted by scLA

I'm going to end it there and just remind everyone that most people on this forum are not lawyers and not accountants and everyone's opinion is just that, an opinion.

Correct. Everyone was playing lawyer at some point

I got the same message from Meredith too.

[mbchris]

I am confused. Isn't there a way to meet both the law and IRS requirements? By having an unlimited worded purchase order?