Federal EV tax credit overhaul

You potentially could, if your LLC has $7,500 in federal income tax liability.

I believe so. Before the IRS guidance was issued, there were discussions of this with respect to Uber/Lyft drivers.

Yes, one should always do that before going off of what a random guy on the internet says

3 Likes

This video made me think of this thread:

https://www.tiktok.com/@ayye_pap/video/7167029357880593710

:joy:

We may have another overhaul incoming

President Maserati Manchin wants to amend the IRA to make 30D the battery sourcing requirement retroactive to January 1st, period.

1 Like

As it stands now, how does the credit work? You fill out paperwork at purchase and then get the money as a credit when you file taxes?
Or does it come as a credit at the time of purchase as a reduction of the credit amount from the purchase price?

For 2023, it comes back on your taxes. Starting in 24, it can be transferred and applied up front.

1 Like

At least he’s proposing a bill to do it and not trying to overstep his authority by doing it through guidance.

1 Like

Although I doubt it will pass, if it does, will folks who are buying EVs after 12/31/2022 potentially not get the $7,500 credit they thought they were getting?

It’s definitely going to piss off a lot of people if it passes.

it should only effect the credit after it passes, not retroactively

edit: this is not correct

No I don’t think this is correct. As the article describes it would apply to all sales this year. So yes people could be buying cars now assuming they are getting a credit which they later do not receive.

“ Manchin’s proposed bill would amend the battery requirement section of the IRA to make the date for compliance January 1 of this year. As a result, any cars currently qualifying for the whole credit would have the battery requirement part revoked — potentially resulting in some much smaller credits for anyone who has already bought a car under current rules, or who is about to in the next couple of months.”

2 Likes

It’s difficult to get worked up about any proposed bill until actually passed, and we can read the text — but agree what I am reading is his proposal is to wind-back the guidance that was given for the first quarter of this year. Effectively anyone who thinks they’re getting the entire tax credit on a purchase may only get half.

That’s getting about as far as a Ford Lightning on a AA alkaline battery.

5 Likes

After looking at the bill itself, I’d agree that you’re correct. I put little stock into articles about the tax credit that can’t even get the basics of the tax credit correct.

1 Like

More rehashing with some better links

If this passes, I don’t see them only addressing Section 30D and not Section 45 to at least add final assembly and battery materials rules (not currently mentioned in the bill).

I was checking to see when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee had it scheduled for debate or markup, and they still haven’t started a calendar for the 118th Congress :crazy_face:

It needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass.

1 Like

Agree this is how it should work, but in recent years there have been several retroactive tax laws passed including passing the law AFTER the tax year is closed. Its really not fair. It has made tax planning an oxymoron.

BTW I follow your comments as borderline gospel. Admitting you got 1 out of 99 wrong is incredibly rare, and further proves worthy of following :slight_smile:

“Plans are useless. Planning is everything”

1 Like

I was reading an interesting discussion on supreme court rulings in regards to ex post facto tax laws and some of the potential untested constitutional arguments of it violating the taking clause under the 5th amendment. These sort of things always highlight what a cluster some of our laws are.

The irony in this particular situation is that the only reason this particular bill even exists is because the dept of treasury has already violated the law by not putting out guidance by Dec 31, when it was legally required to be released. I would much rather see Manchin directing his frustrations towards holding someone liable for that.

2 Likes

May be applicable here