I love bragging over stealing tax payer money.
You seem fun
He seems accurate.
I decided to head this off and create a new topic before it spiraled.
Anyway, I am of the opinion that the money is stolen from me, first, by the gov to fund their agendas. And you can’t steal that which is yours. I am simply reclaiming it. I have not done it yet, but I am planning to.
Now I need to know which thread this discussion came from?
It is linked right under the first post
Given the profit being realized is almost entirely due to the $7500 rebate, which is sponsored by the federal government and not funded by the manufacturer, essentially the rebate is being stolen, as it cannot be realized again on the flipped vehicle, since it’s only applicable to the original purchaser, and in effect is now useless towards the adoption of EVs in the marketplace. The net result is the rebate is burned and the vehicle is back in the marketplace at no discount.
I’m just not sure the people who are serially purchasing Wranglers for resale are thinking this all the way through. The IRS plug-in electronic vehicle credit (IRC 30D) specifically states:
The vehicles must be acquired for use or lease and not for resale.
Therefore, given you will be required to disclose the generated income on your annual IRS tax return, essentially you are leaving behind a paper trail showing clear violation of the credit conditions. Or, if you fail to disclose the income on your tax return, you are now committing tax fraud. All of this seems likely to me to raise the risk of audit as well.
Amen to that!!
I never do anything illegal, but I will always take advantage of what the govt provides in tax credits, incentives, etc. They make the rules, I just follow them. The govt printed $6 trillion dollars last year and damn straight I will get a piece of that action.
You think the IRS has the capacity to look at the specific model and incentives and how the positive equity was acquired?
The paper trail shows no such thing. The conditions are referring to intent. The paper trail shows the result, not the intent.
I had a question I needed to ask the IRS for my business. I called the 800 number and was on hold for over an hour. And then after that hour, I got a recording saying we’re sorry our phone system can’t handle the call volume, call back later.
And you think with all that going on, the IRS is going to devote audit resources to find some Lease buyout hack? Come on.
Just so I understand. Your theory is, it’s OK because you won’t get caught?
Funny enough, the gov takes taxes from me every day that are SUPPOSED to be used for certain things, like my kids’ schools, maintaining roads, and other public projects, yet too much of it goes elsewhere, and that destination is constantly changing without my approval. I paid my taxes with the understanding that our local school was getting $xx. Now they suddenly decided to cut funding to our school. Are they sending that money back to me? Of course not. So, apparently, it is not illegal to utilize tax money in a manner other than first prescribed.
TBH, I think this just comes back to intent, as you note in #2.
I have a 4xe on the way that I plan to use as a daily driver as my previous lease was up over a month ago and I’m currently sharing my wife’s car. I hope I’ll love the car and expect I will, but in the event I don’t or the car is too unreliable, I don’t see it as a moral or legal issue if I decide to sell as my intent for the car was personal use.
This is fair. My comment was more directed to those who are openly buying just to resell, and then doing this serially, 2 or 3 or more times, almost month after month. In some cases people are selling before even getting the registration. I think the intent in those situations is pretty clear.
Is anybody here actually doing that? I don’t think I have yet to see someone sell more than 1. Plus, not that it makes a massive difference, but I can get only 2 affiliate codes a year. Maybe it is different for other people. Mine is through my wife’s workplace.
The answer is most definitely yes. In context of the thread from which my original comment was extracted, I was replying to such an openly admitted situation.
Ya know, the more I think about this though - it is kinda in a grey area and I’m not sure where I stand. For leases the individual isn’t getting the tax credit, they are getting it as an incentive from the leasing company (in this case they are passing through the full $7500), but they aren’t required to do so. In fact, there are many examples of cars qualifying for the EV credit and the leasing company taking the credit themselves without passing it through.
Perhaps its a different provision of the tax code, but wouldn’t that fall under the exclusion that the car is for resale?
The person you replied to just ordered his 2nd only, and I’m not seeing where he said he is selling that one, too. I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m just looking for proof that someone is doing this monthly, as you suggest.
To be a bit pedantic, at lease in the case of someone leasing one of these and then reselling it, one can’t violate IRC30D if they’re not eligible/claiming the tax credit in the first place. They’re simply getting a $7500 incentive from CCAP.