DIDN’T GET THE $7,500 FEDERAL TAX CREDIT!

[SCTesla]

I have submitted and received tax credits for 3 Teslas. My CPA handled the tax credit. One of the cars was a Model Y. I think the IRS knows that Tesla’s qualify. Maybe

I helped my son buy a 2023 Model Y. We took delivery in December of 2023. I got the tax credit. However, it appears that the Inflation Reduction Act changed how the qualification of the clean vehicle tax credit in 2024 is determined.
“At the time of sale, a seller must give you information about your vehicle's qualifications. Sellers must also register online and report the same information to the IRS. If they don't, your vehicle won't be eligible for the credit.”
Just want to share what I have learned about the Federal tax credit with potential CyberTruck owners.
I don’t regret buying the Foundation Series of the All-Wheel Drive Cybertruck.

The IRS knows that the 2024 CT does not qualify. It's common knowledge that it doesn't/didn't found here and all over the internet.

Your CPA should have been able to find that as it's listed on the IRS website (and fueleconomy.gov). Again, the 2024 Cybertruck, regardless of price, does not qualify.

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/

Sponsored

 

[cybercricket]

This has been discussed before and examples were shown where people were rejected in trying this:

Costs allocable to a swimming pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium that has a function other than the function of such storage don't qualify for the residential clean energy credit.

This is the key aspect. If you use the truck for any function other than energy storage, it doesn't qualify.

You're omitting the context. Here is where that text is coming from :

(3) Swimming pools, etc., used as storage medium
Expenditures which are properly allocable to a swimming pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a function other than the function of such storage shall not be taken into account for purposes of this section.

The title of the paragraph sets the limited context, and the further text clarifies it with the relevant examples. If that text was used in isolation at the top of the statute, or if it was attached to the paragraph(s) regarding battery system qualifications, then I would agree. Otherwise it does not apply to battery storage systems such as CT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/25D

 

[SCTesla]

You're omitting the context. Here is where that text is coming from :



The title of the paragraph sets the limited context, and the further text clarifies it with the relevant examples. If that text was used in isolation at the top of the statute, or if it was attached to the paragraph(s) regarding battery system qualifications, then I would agree. Otherwise it does not apply to battery storage systems such as CT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/25D

Again, People with F150s and their version of power shares were submitted by CPAs and rejected by the IRS and that was cited. It was posted here from the F150 forum.

I'm not omitting anything, it was a hot topic when the CT was released and there were examples provided that it was not allowed with the truck.

 

[cybercricket]

Again, People with F150s and their version of power shares were submitted by CPAs and rejected by the IRS and that was cited. It was posted here from the F150 forum.

I'm not omitting anything, it was a hot topic when the CT was released and there were examples provided that it was not allowed with the truck.

Any chance you have a link to those discussions ? And yes, you were omitting the context even if not on purpose. You cited the text from the paragraph without its title, and the title is just as important.

 

[SCTesla]

Any chance you have a link to those discussions ?

I would have to find them, but not off the top of my head, no.

There was an entire thread for it at one point. People were joking that they would by the CT and put it on blocks to get the credit.

The other issue was that the CT was not installed, it was movable. The point someone made was that the intention of the credit was for fixed installed supply to power a house, not a truck that could power a house in an emergency.

 

[Black306]

This has been discussed before and examples were shown where people were rejected in trying this:

Costs allocable to a swimming pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium that has a function other than the function of such storage don't qualify for the residential clean energy credit.

This is the key aspect. If you use the truck for any function other than energy storage, it doesn't qualify.

Translation: bolt hub stands to your truck, then bolt it to the floor. Fixed storage with one function. ?

 

[shopaholic]

Do you live in your own house and have a setup for a backup generator ? You can try to claim your CT as the battery storage, ask your CPA about that.

That’s interesting. Anyone actually done?

 

[cybercricket]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/48#c_6

That’s interesting. Anyone actually done?

Not as far as I know, though there are other threads about this here. According to the post(s) above this has been tried with F150's before, but the F150 discussions I found so far don't necessarily mirror the context. One thread suggested that it's not possible because of the "double dipping", and that's not a surprise. Another thread pointed out to the section of USC that defines "energy storage", which specifically calls out that systems primarily intended for transportation of goods or people don't qualify, but... that provision is linked to the business credit, and not personal home credit. Finally another discussion brought up the same "swimming pool" paragraph but I haven't seen the evidence that it was rejected.

Additionally to consider, some of these credits do require documentation (as in which product the person is claiming the credit for), and others just take a numeric value without additional documentation. I was under the impression for home battery storage there is no additional documentation requirement - if it gets rejected, it will happen during the Audit, and not on submission. Though I'd have to double check on that.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I try to follow the CyberTruck Owners Forum, but I don’t read everything. All the ads and all the posts are overwhelming.

The IRA was announced a long time ago and the upper limit has always been $80K. Period. You didn’t have to read any CTOC posts to know that; all you needed was the base price of the truck, and the lowest FS was $99K. No IRA. The fact that you have an accountant and s/he still let you submit for the rebate suggests that you need a different accountant. And you should have known better.

 

[Kevin Burns]

It’s really my mistake.

 

[tingmo13]

your profile says: Retired
it's Tax Credit
so, you are not eligible

 

[cybercricket]

your profile says: Retired
it's Tax Credit
so, you are not eligible

I don't believe that matters. If he is making taxable income from any source besides employment, tax credits can still be relevant.

 

[mongo]

I don't believe that matters. If he is making taxable income from any source besides employment, tax credits can still be relevant.

With point of sale (not this situation), one doesn't even need that...

 

[2000prerunner]

Whatever … in the grand scheme of things it won’t matter. You’ll be too happy with your Tesla to remember that $7500 bucks lost in the long run. I paid ~ 57K for my model three performance back in 2021. Now you can get one for like $47k with the rebate. I Also missed out on used EV savings with my 2ed m3 by not getting one below $25,000 and not meeting income eligibility. Still no regrets . I wouldn’t change a thing. These cars are way too much fun to fret over a couple of bucks. Just drive the shit out of it so the fuel savings goes past $7500.
lol.

 

[Gaximus]

Yeah, that sucks. But I wouldn’t expect Tesla to put on their site that it isn’t eligible for the rebate. There are hundred of cars being made that don’t qualify, and they don’t have advertisements on theyre sites saying its not ellible. Only cars that are eligible would advertise that.

Sponsored