Elon wants your help! IRS invites consumers to comment on EV tax credit qualifications

[cvalue13]

Does anybody see any ambiguous language that can be used to reduce or eliminate incentives for hybrids, or to include all Model Y models? The only thing I could think of would have to do with how the government classifies SUVs.

to me, there is that limited nuance of classifying SUV’s in a way that does or does not capture the inbetweeners like the Model Y. But a concerted and compelling argument in this respect, probably does not include appeals to values that appear contrary to the intent of the law - such as “no hybrid should get more incentives than any BEV,” which is clearly contrary to the intent of the law. The law is clear that any hybrid with as little as 7kwh of battery capacity and satisfying the other thresholds should get more incentive than any BEV that doesn’t satisfy even one of the thresholds.

Sponsored

 

[savagecabbage]

I believe Tesla could easily raise the suspension by 1.1 inches. Or they could only offer the 7 seat variant until this is sorted. Raising the suspension would only cost Tesla a few dollars extra for some bushings. The Y would take a small Mileage hit and it could be removed after during the first service visit. I wonder if the implication to raising the suspension would require entirely new NHTSA certification? If not I am betting this is the easiest and most likely solution.

 

[Crissa]

The IRS of course knows they are corrupt and biased - and are simply 'inviting comments' as a posturing move and smoke screen to distract attention from the obvious.

Corrupt how?
Biased how?

They're understaffed, under funded, and have to design regulations based on the vague laws passed. And then defend the, in court,

They can defend the weight and clearance as being an objective measure - although I'd say cargo capacity is more of an objective measure of what the vehicle does than the gross weight of the vehicle.

We as buyers care what it can do, not how much it weighs.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

The IRS of course knows they are corrupt and biased - and are simply 'inviting comments' as a posturing move and smoke screen to distract attention from the obvious.

they are “inviting comments” because they are required to by Congress/law, and further required by Congress/law to draft and disseminate interpretation guidelines of these portions of the bill before it becomes effective law.

 

[firsttruck]

Corrupt how?
Biased how?

They're understaffed, under funded, and have to design regulations based on the vague laws passed. And then defend the, in court,

They can defend the weight and clearance as being an objective measure - although I'd say cargo capacity is more of an objective measure of what the vehicle does than the gross weight of the vehicle.

We as buyers care what it can do, not how much it weighs.

-Crissa

Weight should never have been a criteria for definition of what is a SUV.


Maybe should be based on

# of adult passenger seating
cubic feet of cargo storage
ground clearance

 

[Crissa]

Maybe should be based on

# of adult passenger seating
cubic feet of cargo storage
ground clearance

Pounds of cargo storage

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Pounds of cargo storage

-Crissa

Are minivans in or out? Because I’ve always viewed the X as, at best, a small minivan.

Maybe all these micro-SUVs should be excluded from the $80K cap, if applying what seems the spirit of the bill.

 

[WildhavenMI]

Are minivans in or out? Because I’ve always viewed the X as, at best, a small minivan.

Maybe all these micro-SUVs should be excluded from the $80K cap, if applying what seems the spirit of the bill.

I traded in my minivan (Pacifica Hybrid) for an X, mostly because I no longer wanted any vehicles that used gas. I lost cargo space, but I gained significant towing capabilities and because I am able to pull a loaded box trailer with it I was also able to dump the old truck I kept around for that stuff.

I think the spirit of the bill is to make an ev more price accessible for most people. The X is not made price accessible with a $7,500 credit.

 

[cvalue13]

I think the spirit of the bill is to make an ev more price accessible for most people.

specifically, the spirit is to *not* assist individuals who make over $150K/year, or anyone otherwise purchasing a “fancy” vehicle

Obviously the “fancy” metric is the squishy part, but take a look at the full-sized truck segment and what sub-$80K will get you: basically, the middle-tier trim segments at best. Right or wrong, I think any Mod X is seen as “fancy.”

regarding this issue of hybrids being unjustifiably incentivized over BEVs, it seems people are underestimating the possible impact of the still unclear battery minerals and manufacturing requirements. depending on how those metrics land, it could in theory be all manufactures hope to do is find 7kwh of qualifying batteries. We just down know yet.

put differently, people are still assuming the model X will continue to qualify at all under the other technical specs - and while we’re hopeful, it remains to be seen

 

[WildhavenMI]

specifically, the spirit is to *not* assist individuals who make over $150K/year, or anyone otherwise purchasing a “fancy” vehicle

Obviously the “fancy” metric is the squishy part, but take a look at the full-sized truck segment and what sub-$80K will get you: basically, the middle-tier trim segments at best. Right or wrong, I think any Mod X is seen as “fancy.”

Agree - the X is a luxury car, and def a "fancy vehicle", and IMO should not qualify for the credit. We're on the same page there.

I differ from most of this thread in that I could care less about the capacity/space/weight requirements, and think it's all about the price. Unless you're making $150k+/year, you probably shouldn't be buying a new car north of $55k anyway (exceptions for trucks larger than a half-ton). And really there should be a lot of emphasis put on getting OEMs into the $30k price range for new EVs. Making a $55k EV "affordable" at $47,500 is not nearly as beneficial to most people as making a $45k EV into a $37,500 one.

 

[Sirfun]

Agree - the X is a luxury car, and def a "fancy vehicle", and IMO should not qualify for the credit. We're on the same page there.

I differ from most of this thread in that I could care less about the capacity/space/weight requirements, and think it's all about the price. Unless you're making $150k+/year, you probably shouldn't be buying a new car north of $55k anyway (exceptions for trucks larger than a half-ton). And really there should be a lot of emphasis put on getting OEMs into the $30k price range for new EVs. Making a $55k EV "affordable" at $47,500 is not nearly as beneficial to most people as making a $45k EV into a $37,500 one.

So in theory, (if you can get one at the MSRP of $27,495). And you qualify (pay over $7500 in taxes). Someone COULD purchase a new Chevy Bolt for $19,995 plus tax & license.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...evy-bolt-ev-price-as-7-500-tax-credit-returns

 

[WildhavenMI]

So in theory, (if you can get one at the MSRP of $27,495). And you qualify (pay over $7500 in taxes). Someone COULD purchase a new Chevy Bolt for $19,995 plus tax & license.

Yeah, which tbh is about where a vehicle that size and with those capabilities should be. Lets not forget that just 4 years ago that every non-luxury OEM compact base model was under $20k.

Average new car prices are absolutely bonkers since 2020, and a lot of people seem to have become accustom to a $500+ payment and 7 year terms. It wasn't all that long ago that a 5 year term on an average new car was ~$250/mo. Low mileage leases routinely advertised at $99. Now, somehow, we're willing to accept that you can't get into a new car (much less an EV) for less than twice that in just a couple years.

Even the used market is obnoxious, although correcting itself quickly.

 

[cvalue13]

Making a $55k EV "affordable" at $47,500 is not nearly as beneficial to most people as making a $45k EV into a $37,500 one.

which, to me, is why folks are misguided to complain that the bill “over-incentivizes” hybrids. Instead, the bill specifically incentivized any electric vehicles in a certain price range (and buyer income range), which hybrids disproportionately occupy.

and it may turn out that hybrids have an even further monopoly on these incentives, depending on the ultimate interpretation of the battery minerals/manufacturing requirements.

I don’t think either dynamic was an accident under the bill.

and I think folks tend to forget that absent this bill being passed there we’re going to be zero incentives for any EV, hybrid or not.

 

[Crissa]

specifically, the spirit is to *not* assist individuals who make over $150K/year, or anyone otherwise purchasing a “fancy” vehicle

With a $150k income you're not even cracking the top 10% of the US.

-Crissa

 

[WildhavenMI]

With a $150k income you're not even cracking the top 10% of the US.

-Crissa

Why on Earth do we need to incentivise those in the top 10%? I ask, as a member of that group, why I should be getting gov money for something I can already afford.

Sponsored