Will Tesla accept the 2024 EV tax credit off the purchase price?

[Cyberman]

Next year, when some of us may actually receive the Cybertruck, the IRS is supposed to expand access to the federal tax credit for electric vehicles.
Specifically, it will be possible for buyers to transfer their credit to the dealer, and receive the equivalent price off the vehicle.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1783

"When a buyer chooses to transfer the credit, registered dealers will reduce the purchase price of the vehicle or provide cash to the buyer. The amount provided must equal the full amount of the credit available for the eligible vehicle."

My question is, will Tesla be considered a registered dealer in this instance?

The idea of getting $7500 off the purchase price of the Cybertruck instead of a deferred tax credit is appealing.

Yaa.

Sponsored

 

[Cyber_Dav]

Does FSD count against the $80,000 limit?

 

[George Costanza]

Does FSD count against the $80,000 limit?

It does not.

By the way, neither does the destination fee or the order fee.

 

[CyberGus]

The Model S is $76k and the Model X is $81k.

If the CT3 is more than that, I’m out.

 

[fritter63]

Don't have time to read the whole thread. But has been pointed out by several Tesla YouTubers..... the language is something like "Qualified entity" (not dealer) for a reason.....

 

[RVAC]

remember Musk called his tri the ‘performance’ model?


he didn’t call it the ‘long range’ model


same and framing as the Model S plaid



That makes sense but they're not shaking that association with a name change. If it has three motors it will be seen as the "tri-motor", there's no escaping that. So if optics were the only concern, which they aren't, it would be a better look to say it's coming in the future rather than releasing a small number of them that significantly fall short of expectations.



was my initial impression as well


but seems it’s a matter of volume, price-point, and exclusivity


Similarly, the initial impression would mean there’s also no reason to not make as many Model S Plaid as regular line Model S



I'm going off from memory here, but as I recall Model S Plaid was actually prioritized over Model S LR in terms of deliveries back in 2021, or at the very least not artificially constrained. The only limitation being how many people could and were willing to pay for one. 




One might be tempted to respond to the above with eg ‘but the waiting list is so long, they could sell as many tri’s as they can make’


but if you think back to the combination of both of your comments above: if the dual and tri have relatively similar range (even perhaps the tri is a little less, like the Model S Plaid), then how many people are going to opt for the more expensive ‘performance’ model?


so now you’re squarely in the zone of the above-mentioned prioritizing of volume, price point, and exclusivity (eg the certain type of buyer who will pay a premium to have the ‘performance’ model, with essentially similar range - again, like the Model S Plaid buyer)



I'm probably missing something but I still don't see the benefit of doing so if the tri has the same number of cells as the dual. You would control it through pricing rather than artificially constraining production of it.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm probably missing something but I still don't see the benefit of doing so if the tri has the same number of cells as the dual. You would control it through pricing rather than artificially constraining production of it.

it’s multi-faceted, but to pluck out one dynamic and reduce it to cartoon simplicity (only level my mind is capable of):

Say if in a given time X, you can only build 6 trucks

during that time X, there are 5 people who will only buy a [65K] dual for every 1 person who will only buy a [85k] tri

If you use time X to build 6 tris, you sell only 1 tri and pay for 5 tri’s in idol inventory (may as well have never sold the tri given the cost of inventory)

if you use the time to build 6 duals, you sell 5 trucks and 1 tri sits in inventory - better!

ideally you build 5 duals and 1 tri - best

one might be tempted to say, because of demand, that at least initially you could build three dual and three tri and you’ll sell every one. Which is true, until you can’t. And when you reach that point of ‘can’t’ you’ll have made the bulk of eager dual customers, the majority, wait only in order to priorotize and quickly saturate the limited market of tri customers.

now that above is only one dynamic at play, but at a cartoon level it’s going on here - with the *reason* for why you can only build 6 trucks in time X being the funnel-factor

But consider also, what if building a tri takes more time and costs more capex than building a dual. Such that it’s not a one-to-one decision of building 6 trucks of any arrangement. Instead you have to choose between building 6 duals in time X or alternatively 4 duals and 1 tri in time X. Now youmre choosing between selling 6 trucks in time X vs 5 trucks in time X. Etc etc.

None of which is remotely to say the above cartoons fully explain Tesla’s calculus. There are many other possible factors at play - including eg that they have plans in a year to release different versions for which they want to stack demand and turnover/repeat buyers. And similarly, another factor is that ‘exclusive’ models with premium prices have a psychological element that requires rarity to thrive. Etc. Etc.

and finally, remember that all the above assumes a key factor: there will not be a range difference between a dual and tri, and so we may be confusing our long-held impression that the market for tri’s will be ravenous because we assumed it would be the range king by up to 500mi. But if in truth the difference between a dual and tri is reduced to speed, like a Plaid, then we may be overly biased to think the market for a more expensive ‘performance’ (fast) version is huge. Which feeds back into the factors above.

all in all, though, remember the above is not deducing from the above ideas forward into a hypothesis about Tesla’s roll-out.

The above instead is inducing from what is a known fact about Tesla’s roll-out, backwards into various hypothesis about the reasoning.

that’s a difference between wondering why they are doing it this way, vs why wouldn’t they do it another way. Different

 

[rudedawg78]

Oh, there will CERTAINLY be a quad. (if you count the tri-motor and the BAW motor, that makes 4.)

I am pretty sure the BAW requires two motors to operate, single won't cut it. Prepare for a quin-motor!

 

[RVAC]

it’s multi-faceted, but to pluck out one dynamic and reduce it to cartoon simplicity (only level my mind is capable of):

Say if in a given time X, you can only build 6 trucks

during that time X, there are 5 people who will only buy a [65K] dual for every 1 person who will only buy a [85k] tri

If you use time X to build 6 tris, you sell only 1 tri and pay for 5 tri’s in idol inventory (may as well have never sold the tri given the cost of inventory)

if you use the time to build 6 duals, you sell 5 trucks and 1 tri sits in inventory - better!

ideally you build 5 duals and 1 tri - best

one might be tempted to say, because of demand, that at least initially you could build three dual and three tri and you’ll sell every one. Which is true, until you can’t. And when you reach that point of ‘can’t’ you’ll have made the bulk of eager dual customers, the majority, wait only in order to priorotize and quickly saturate the limited market of tri customers.

now that above is only one dynamic at play, but at a cartoon level it’s going on here - with the *reason* for why you can only build 6 trucks in time X being the funnel-factor

That I do get, however all that amounts to is matching trim production in a way that is proportionate to orders. The characterization was that Tesla would make a few to start with just to show they exist but then, like Ford did with the consumer Lightning Pro, limit production because they’d rather not make them. The reason why Ford did that is clear, the reason why Tesla would do so with a tri that has the same pack size as the dual less so.

But consider also, what if building a tri takes more time and costs more capex than building a dual. Such that it’s not a one-to-one decision of building 6 trucks of any arrangement. Instead you have to choose between building 6 duals in time X or alternatively 4 duals and 1 tri in time X. Now youmre choosing between selling 6 trucks in time X vs 5 trucks in time X. Etc etc.

Possibly, just can’t put my finger on what it would be that could not be offset by the higher price of the tri motor trim or would result in a materially longer build time, given the only difference is the drive unit.

and finally, remember that all the above assumes a key factor: there will not be a range difference between a dual and tri, and so we may be confusing our long-held impression that the market for tri’s will be ravenous because we assumed it would be the range king by up to 500mi. But if in truth the difference between a dual and tri is reduced to speed, like a Plaid, then we may be overly biased to think the market for a more expensive ‘performance’ (fast) version is huge. Which feeds back into the factors above.

Right, but one thing is to build to projected demand and another to build a small number irrespective of demand, i.e. artificially constraining production.

 

[cvalue13]

Right, but one thing is to build to projected demand and another to build a small number irrespective of demand, i.e. artificially constraining production.

indont think they’d artificially constrain production (though if they had other reasons to, that exclusivity would be a Sid effect wouldn’t be unvalied)

That I do get, however all that amounts to is matching trim production in a way that is proportionate to orders. The characterization was that Tesla would make a few to start with just to show they exist but then, like Ford did with the consumer Lightning Pro, limit production because they’d rather not make them. The reason why Ford did that is clear, the reason why Tesla would do so with a tri that has the same pack size as the dual less so.

yeah, and I don’t think there’s any singular reason for the decision but likely a constellation of fors/againsts that on balance pointed one direction not the other

to the extent I suggested, as you point out, they don’t *want* to make tri’s, I only meant that quip to the extent of a vague sense that in an all-things-considered basis they want to sell as many units to as many people as fast possible, and establish the CT as an accessible truck that can compete and replace the $45K F150 it should target.

let’s say Tesla isn’t very confident that a merely faster ‘performance’ tri motor (with a price premium), with less range than a dual, is going to sell like hotcakes. (Or they know they’re going to price it in a way that they expect it to not?)

then in something like this universe, you start building duals as fast as possible knowing you’ll sell every one, and (assume) at a price point that makes the market segment impact you want.

but you also have to release a tri for the stats.

I’m sure if it turns out people are ravenous for a performance CT with lower range, Tesla could change their build mix

but again, this is all to pluck out a few possible items from what may be a long list.

For all we know, they could still be parts constrained on the tri kit, and planning to release a 500mi (if things go well with density) in a year, and internally not happy with the tri, and any number of things at once that cause them to - in addition to the few points above - decide to have a dual-heavy build mix

 

[Gurule92]

indont think they’d artificially constrain production (though if they had other reasons to, that exclusivity would be a Sid effect wouldn’t be unvalied)




yeah, and I don’t think there’s any singular reason for the decision but likely a constellation of fors/againsts that on balance pointed one direction not the other

to the extent I suggested, as you point out, they don’t *want* to make tri’s, I only meant that quip to the extent of a vague sense that in an all-things-considered basis they want to sell as many units to as many people as fast possible, and establish the CT as an accessible truck that can compete and replace the $45K F150 it should target.

let’s say Tesla isn’t very confident that a merely faster ‘performance’ tri motor (with a price premium), with less range than a dual, is going to sell like hotcakes. (Or they know they’re going to price it in a way that they expect it to not?)

then in something like this universe, you start building duals as fast as possible knowing you’ll sell every one, and (assume) at a price point that makes the market segment impact you want.

but you also have to release a tri for the stats.

I’m sure if it turns out people are ravenous for a performance CT with lower range, Tesla could change their build mix

but again, this is all to pluck out a few possible items from what may be a long list.

For all we know, they could still be parts constrained on the tri kit, and planning to release a 500mi (if things go well with density) in a year, and internally not happy with the tri, and any number of things at once that cause them to - in addition to the few points above - decide to have a dual-heavy build mix

I just want my CT to be as quick as my MYP so I don't have to miss it while my wife drives it lol

Sponsored