2023 Toyota Prius - WOW!

[Phase]

Anyone see any Priuses in the wild yet? Says they released a few weeks ago

[JSH]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

It will also need new tires and a suspension job once in a while, but when it comes to brakes I wouldn't really hold my breath for any component of this system to last the lifetime of the vehicle. Just look at how some trucks rely a lot on Jake-Brakes and other auxiliary brake retarders, which do improve the lifespan of normal brakes but not make them last the lifetime of the vehicle.

When I sold my 2005 Prius at 12 years / 145K miles it still had 75% of the friction material on the pads / shoes. My parents' 2010 Prius still has original pads all around at 185K miles

Hybrids / EVs should never need any brake repairs. Just keep the caliper pins lubricated and change the brake fluid on schedule and they should last the life of the vehicle.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Which bill? as I cannot find anywhere where it says that.

The bill that was passed into law
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/5376/text

The transfer section is on page 142 of the 274 page bill. The key part in bold. Eligibility to transfer the credit is based on section (a). (a) is the section that talks about final assembly and critical minerals. Again - this works the same was as the old and current Lease loophole.

(g) TRANSFER OF CREDIT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 30D is amended by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
‘‘(g) TRANSFER OF CREDIT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary, if the taxpayer
who acquires a new clean vehicle elects the application of
this subsection with respect to such vehicle, the credit which
would (but for this subsection) be allowed to such taxpayer
with respect to such vehicle shall be allowed to the eligible
entity specified in such election (and not to such taxpayer).
‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—For purposes of this subsection, the
term ‘eligible entity’ means, with respect to the vehicle for
which the credit is allowed under subsection (a), the dealer
which sold such vehicle to the taxpayer and has—
‘‘(A) subject to paragraph (4), registered with the Secretary for purposes of this paragraph, at such time, and
in such form and manner, as the Secretary may prescribe,
‘‘(B) prior to the election described in paragraph (1)
and not later than at the time of such sale, disclosed
to the taxpayer purchasing such vehicle—
‘‘(i) the manufacturer’s suggested retail price,
‘‘(ii) the value of the credit allowed and any other
incentive available for the purchase of such vehicle,
and
‘‘(iii) the amount provided by the dealer to such
taxpayer as a condition of the election described in
paragraph (1),
‘‘(C) not later than at the time of such sale, made
payment to such taxpayer (whether in cash or in the form
of a partial payment or down payment for the purchase
of such vehicle) in an amount equal to the credit otherwise
allowable to such taxpayer, and
‘‘(D) with respect to any incentive otherwise available
for the purchase of a vehicle for which a credit is allowed
under this section, including any incentive in the form
of a rebate or discount provided by the dealer or manufacturer, ensured that—
‘‘(i) the availability or use of such incentive shall
not limit the ability of a taxpayer to make an election
described in paragraph (1), and
‘‘(ii) such election shall not limit the value or use
of such incentive.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

The bill that was passed into law
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/5376/text

...

(g) TRANSFER OF CREDIT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 30D is amended by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
‘‘(g) TRANSFER OF CREDIT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary, if the taxpayer
who acquires a new clean vehicle elects the application of
this subsection with respect to such vehicle, the credit which
would (but for this subsection) be allowed to such taxpayer
with respect to such vehicle shall be allowed to the eligible
entity specified in such election (and not to such taxpayer).
‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—For purposes of this subsection, the
term ‘eligible entity’ means, with respect to the vehicle for
which the credit is allowed under subsection (a), the dealer
which sold such vehicle to the taxpayer and has—
‘‘(A) subject to paragraph (4), registered with the Secretary for purposes of this paragraph, at such time, and
in such form and manner, as the Secretary may prescribe,
‘‘(B) prior to the election described in paragraph (1)
and not later than at the time of such sale, disclosed
to the taxpayer purchasing such vehicle—
‘‘(i) the manufacturer’s suggested retail price,
‘‘(ii) the value of the credit allowed and any other
incentive available for the purchase of such vehicle,
and
‘‘(iii) the amount provided by the dealer to such
taxpayer as a condition of the election described in
paragraph (1),
‘‘(C) not later than at the time of such sale, made
payment to such taxpayer (whether in cash or in the form
of a partial payment or down payment for the purchase
of such vehicle) in an amount equal to the credit otherwise
allowable to such taxpayer, and
‘‘(D) with respect to any incentive otherwise available
for the purchase of a vehicle for which a credit is allowed
under this section, including any incentive in the form
of a rebate or discount provided by the dealer or manufacturer, ensured that—
‘‘(i) the availability or use of such incentive shall
not limit the ability of a taxpayer to make an election
described in paragraph (1), and
‘‘(ii) such election shall not limit the value or use
of such incentive.

I'm no lawyer, and I truely hope that the tax credit is no longer limited to one's own owed taxes. But the term "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" sounds to me like the credit that "would be allowed" if that taxpayer didn't choose to have it applied to the point-of-sale. In other words, if the tax payer "would be allowed" only $500 of that tax credit because at the end of the year he only owes $500 in taxes, then it sounds to me like that's the amount that "shall be allowed to the eligible
entity."

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I'm no lawyer, and I truely hope that the tax credit is no longer limited to one's own owed taxes. But the term "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" sounds to me like the credit that "would be allowed" if that taxpayer didn't choose to have it applied to the point-of-sale. In other words, if the tax payer "would be allowed" only $500 of that tax credit because at the end of the year he only owes $500 in taxes, then it sounds to me like that's the amount that "shall be allowed to the eligible
entity."

This is an example of why our tax code, and most law, is either profoundly dumb, or profoundly corrupt.

What you describe is the difference between what is considered a "refundable" tax credit, and "non-refundable". Refundable credits pay out cash if you don't have enough tax liability. Non-refundable does not. To complicate things even further, some tax credits "carry-over", meaning if you don't have the full tax liability in a single year, the remainder of the credit carries over to the next year (up to the duration of the carry over).

I'm not usually the "burn it to the ground" type, but our idiotic tax law easily fits the criteria of needing to be sent to the woodchipper. There's no way that's happening though, because both political parties can take advantage of us dullards towards their elitist ends.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I'm no lawyer, and I truely hope that the tax credit is no longer limited to one's own owed taxes. But the term "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" sounds to me like the credit that "would be allowed" if that taxpayer didn't choose to have it applied to the point-of-sale. In other words, if the tax payer "would be allowed" only $500 of that tax credit because at the end of the year he only owes $500 in taxes, then it sounds to me like that's the amount that "shall be allowed to the eligible
entity."

I'm not a lawyer either but I can read the text. It says "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" and then clarifies "with respect to the vehicle for
which the credit is allowed under subsection (a)" Section A has specific rules for what credit is allowed per vehicle. None of that section deals with income or taxed owed.

If you just took the credit yourself it would be nonrefundable and limited to the taxes you owe in the year you buy the car. If you transfer the credit to the dealer - it is no longer based on your income. Just as if you lease an EV the credit is not based on the buyer's income or taxes. For years people that don't make enough money to pay $7500 in taxes have been leasing EVs so that they can get the full $7500. Nothing changed for that lease "loophole" in the IRA and congress specifically added the option to buy the car and still get the full credit at point of sale. Personally I don't think this was an error or a loophole. Congress laid out rules that would make the credit more palatable to the general public that have been talked about for months - and then wrote in an exception that would allow FAR more people to take the credit.

However - if I'm wrong about this there is still the lease "loophole" for those that don't pay $7500 in federal income taxes. Nothing changed there. At the end of the day someone that doesn't pay a dime in income taxes can still get the full credit.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

This is an example of why our tax code, and most law, is either profoundly dumb, or profoundly corrupt.

What you describe is the difference between what is considered a "refundable" tax credit, and "non-refundable". Refundable credits pay out cash if you don't have enough tax liability. Non-refundable does not. To complicate things even further, some tax credits "carry-over", meaning if you don't have the full tax liability in a single year, the remainder of the credit carries over to the next year (up to the duration of the carry over).

I'm not usually the "burn it to the ground" type, but our idiotic tax law easily fits the criteria of needing to be sent to the woodchipper. There's no way that's happening though, because both political parties can take advantage of us dullards towards their elitist ends.

I'm generally in agreement. Using the tax code to punish or reward people for doing things is stupid and overly complicated. However, we have been doing it that way for decades and I don't see it changing.

Personally I'd like to see simple graduated tax brackets without deductions and with all income treated the same. Taxes should also be paid based on individual liability not by family unit. Do that and tax prep wouldn't be required. The funny thing is most wealthy countries do it this way and the government does your taxes and send the bill - it isn't up to the individual to calculate their tax bill with the threat of huge fines or jail if they do it wrong. The idea of the government calculating taxes comes up periodically and then is tabled do to strong opposition from the tax prep and accounting lobbies telling congress how many people would lose their jobs if paying taxes was easy.

If the government wants to give people money to do things that can be done as a point of sale rebate - no different than when a company provides a discount.

Part of the problem is our puritanical desire to decide who "deserves" a certain credit and who doesn't. Means testing is pretty much overwhelmingly found to cost more than a simple level system but the public HATES the idea of someone "undeserving" getting a dollar from the feds.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

I'm not a lawyer either but I can read the text. It says "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" and then clarifies "with respect to the vehicle for
which the credit is allowed under subsection (a)" Section A has specific rules for what credit is allowed per vehicle. None of that section deals with income or taxed owed.

If you just took the credit yourself it would be nonrefundable and limited to the taxes you owe in the year you buy the car. If you transfer the credit to the dealer - it is no longer based on your income. Just as if you lease an EV the credit is not based on the buyer's income or taxes. For years people that don't make enough money to pay $7500 in taxes have been leasing EVs so that they can get the full $7500. Nothing changed for that lease "loophole" in the IRA and congress specifically added the option to buy the car and still get the full credit at point of sale. Personally I don't think this was an error or a loophole. Congress laid out rules that would make the credit more palatable to the general public that have been talked about for months - and then wrote in an exception that would allow FAR more people to take the credit.

However - if I'm wrong about this there is still the lease "loophole" for those that don't pay $7500 in federal income taxes. Nothing changed there. At the end of the day someone that doesn't pay a dime in income taxes can still get the full credit.

Interesting comparison to the lease loophole. I had no idea that the lease loophole existed.

What I can say is such loopholes don't make any sense. I'd like to ask the IRS, why is it that I can use the full tax credit at the point-of-sale but if I wait then there's a chance I may not get it?

At any rate, like anything, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I'm no lawyer, and I truely hope that the tax credit is no longer limited to one's own owed taxes. But the term "the credit which would be allowed to such taxpayer" sounds to me like the credit that "would be allowed" if that taxpayer didn't choose to have it applied to the point-of-sale. In other words, if the tax payer "would be allowed" only $500 of that tax credit because at the end of the year he only owes $500 in taxes, then it sounds to me like that's the amount that "shall be allowed to the eligible
entity."

Originally Posted by JSH

I'm generally in agreement. Using the tax code to punish or reward people for doing things is stupid and overly complicated. However, we have been doing it that way for decades and I don't see it changing.

Personally I'd like to see simple graduated tax brackets without deductions and with all income treated the same. Taxes should also be paid based on individual liability not by family unit. Do that and tax prep wouldn't be required. The funny thing is most wealthy countries do it this way and the government does your taxes and send the bill - it isn't up to the individual to calculate their tax bill with the threat of huge fines or jail if they do it wrong. The idea of the government calculating taxes comes up periodically and then is tabled do to strong opposition from the tax prep and accounting lobbies telling congress how many people would lose their jobs if paying taxes was easy.

If the government wants to give people money to do things that can be done as a point of sale rebate - no different than when a company provides a discount.

Part of the problem is our puritanical desire to decide who "deserves" a certain credit and who doesn't. Means testing is pretty much overwhelmingly found to cost more than a simple level system but the public HATES the idea of someone "undeserving" getting a dollar from the feds.

Sorta along the same line of reasoning that I might be convinced a UBI is a good idea. Practically no overhead because there's no "cheating" the benefit. If you're an adult person who is living, you get it.

I slightly lean towards a federal sales tax, but I could be convinced income tax is the better methodology.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

When I sold my 2005 Prius at 12 years / 145K miles it still had 75% of the friction material on the pads / shoes. My parents' 2010 Prius still has original pads all around at 185K miles

That's quite impressive, but just remember I am still used to see cars around 40 to 50 years-old still being daily-driven, and not even close to be heading to a scrapyard anytime soon.