If you are over the income limits (150/300k) of the new bill and haven't gotten your truck....

[VTbuckeye]

It will be price protected, but the MSRP on the window sticker will still be 80094. Potentially a problem for many lariat ER max tow trucks. The MSRP on my original order sheet says 79994. My order was on Feb 18 and won't be built for another few weeks.

Sponsored

 

[greenne]

Per the terms from Ford, our orders are not sufficient under the current terms of the Bill. Also, the MSRP requirements kick in when the Bill is signed except for the "Transition" section I cited earlier (and other inapplicable sections). Unless you can cite to actual portions of the Bill that state otherwise, that is the law.

Thats your interpretation...I consider an order to be binding unless you can point to official definition that is different

 

[greenne]

yes, agreed, there is no 'pull back' of the current tax credit simply because a 'new' tax bill is almost in play - it STARTS Jan 1.

This 100%^^^

 

[Simpso57]

Thats your interpretation...I consider an order to be binding unless you can point to official definition that is different

Ford Reservation Terms and Conditions here, which says in part:

By completing the Reservation Process, you are not ordering or purchasing a vehicle. The Reservation Process allows you to configure a Vehicle and pay the Reservation Deposit (“Reservation Deposit”) to Ford. Participation in the Program does not guarantee you vehicle delivery. You must contact a Dealer to discuss final transaction pricing, arrange any necessary financing, and complete your purchase of the Vehicle.

Terms and conditions for orders? Found those terms and it still is not a "purchase":

By completing the Order Process, you are not purchasing a vehicle. The Order Process allows you to configure a Vehicle and pay the Order Deposit (“Order Deposit”) directly to an authorized Ford Dealer (“Dealer”). By paying an Order Deposit, you are agreeing to the Dealer’s selling price for your selected vehicle, which may differ from the MSRP.

The language in the Bill says "entered into a written binding contract to purchase...."

If you have language in the terms and conditions or the Bill that says differently, I would love to see it. And even if you find it, at least in CA it is illegal for dealers to bind you with a deposit.

 

[greenne]

Ford Reservation Terms and Conditions here, which says in part:

By completing the Reservation Process, you are not ordering or purchasing a vehicle. The Reservation Process allows you to configure a Vehicle and pay the Reservation Deposit (“Reservation Deposit”) to Ford. Participation in the Program does not guarantee you vehicle delivery. You must contact a Dealer to discuss final transaction pricing, arrange any necessary financing, and complete your purchase of the Vehicle.

Terms and conditions for orders? Found those terms and it still is not a "purchase":

By completing the Order Process, you are not purchasing a vehicle. The Order Process allows you to configure a Vehicle and pay the Order Deposit (“Order Deposit”) directly to an authorized Ford Dealer (“Dealer”). By paying an Order Deposit, you are agreeing to the Dealer’s selling price for your selected vehicle, which may differ from the MSRP.

The language in the Bill says "entered into a written binding contract to purchase...."

If you have language in the terms and conditions or the Bill that says differently, I would love to see it. And even if you find it, at least in CA it is illegal for dealers to bind you with a deposit.

The law says you have to enter a contract to purchase, not complete the purchase. How is this any different than if you ordered a Kia, Toyota or any other vehicle you order? You're not specifically purchasing the vehicle until you give them the rest of money at purchase time.

The language of the Bill says "entered into a written binding contract to purchase...." --not have completed a purchase

If you have language in the terms and conditions or the Bill that says what constitutes a written binding contract, I'd love to see it. (I'm also making the jump to say written includes electronically acknowledged documents).

As far as California goes, I don't live in California and I'm not buying a vehicle in California. Its not relevant to me on how California views this issue.

As I view it, if I say I'm going to purchase a standard vehicle for XXX price, the dealer has agreed to it and we have sent electronic communications thru Ford confirming such...AND I've paid $$ that is understood(agreed) to be applied to said purchase...its a binding contract....unless you can provide a law applicable in NY that says otherwise.

As always, I'm gonna do me. You do you. For the audience, consult your tax professional for guidance.. this is my personal interpretation--subject to change upon further official guidance from the IRS.

 

[FordLightningMan]

The fact that all information from Ford says non-binding multiple times, makes me certain we are not explicitly covered by the transition rule. Binding is a clear legal term, as is non-binding, you wouldn't win this argument if audited. The hope would be you aren't audited, but you might as well just lie about any number of rebates in that instance.

I asked my dealer if they can give me a contract with the word binding on it, which would make it clearly eligible for the transition period. So far they didn't get back to me, my guess is they don't feel comfortable deviating from their standard documents that have been reviewed by their counsel, for fear of legal issues. This exact fear that the dealer is having is further proof what I've signed to date is "non-binding" through and through.

 

[ExCivilian]

As far as California goes, I don't live in California and I'm not buying a vehicle in California. Its not relevant to me on how California views this issue.

FWIW, their interpretation of CA law is not accurate, either.

The law forbids dealerships from requiring non-refundable deposits, which is different from whether they can accept them.

Additionally, a binding contract does not hinge on whether a deposit is or isn't required. The ability to withdraw from a contract doesn't render it "non-binding," either. For example, anytime someone enters into a purchase agreement over a house they are engaging in a binding, but cancelable, contract. There may be fees and/or penalties or certain caveats allowing cancellation without penalty, but the parties can sue one another to enforce the contract thereby rendering it "binding."

Franchise contracts would be another example. Everything in a vehicle transaction is typically "non-binding" primarily because they disclaim that on all the documents until the final signature. It's just one more example of their flagrant abuse of power over individuals because ordinarily the law wouldn't allow people to make false claims, bait with inaccurate pricing schemes, tack on junk fees and install non-existence items, and play fast and loose in verbal representations that would amount to verbal contracts in essentially all other contexts.

I think the reason so many people here are tripping over this is because no one really knows whether what we have is or isn't even a contract let alone whether whatever we have is binding. So basically we've got a community trying to figure out whether we've got a contract at all to hold our dealerships to and now an additional wrinkle, arguably being conflated with the definitional discussion, of whether it is, or what constitutes one if not, a binding contract.

One thing to note, however, is there is at least once case study of a state that is presumably treating these agreements as binding. The person who's truck was sold out from under them to another customer apparently had some kind of action since the dealership was fined by the state, threatened with legal action, and forced to find a suitable replacement. That points to the state, at least, interpreting that as "his" truck, which could only be true if he was operating within the context of a binding contract.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much trying to figure this stuff out. It takes me a few years to teach a student the nuts and bolts of contract law and then they'll take a lifetime perfecting that knowledge in the field while focusing on a very narrow, specific aspect of the broader corpus of contract law.

 

[Tyler Durden]

tl;dr: my opinion is that the transition rule only protects EV's otherwise affected by the IRA Part 4, Section 13401(k)(2)-(5). All the rest (all F150L's) get to use the "old" credit until 12/31/2022.

....

Repeating my post #32, IANAL, I am not a tax accountant, Everyone DYODD, best of luck on your 2022 tax filing....

Let me take a tortured, cranial-melting tour through the IRA. Starting with the effective dates on page 401:

OK, cool, I think. Then let's look at the following referenced paragraphs (next page 402). I'll ignore (4), and (5) as I think we'd all agree that doesn't apply to F150L's. For (3), it's pointing to the language established as part of the "old" credit, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (which itself seems to have amended 26 U.S. Code 30D), particularly, the final phase-out of the old credit ($1875). Not Applicable to F150L's. Edit: oops, greenne got it right in post #55 below, this is actually pointing to the new amendment in the IRA mandating guidance on the battery metal rules and (maybe?) MSRP guidance but I don't see MSRP as part of section (a) or (e), it's in (f)(11)(B)(iii)

Paragraph (2) points to subsection (b) (page 381) is the North American assembly requirement, and makes the "new" law effective immediately after it's signed into law Not applicable to F150L's....

....but we'll come back to this, as it seemingly screws over anyone who is taking delivery of a non-NA-assembled EV that would otherwise qualify. OK, so let's look at the "transition rule"....

...this is where it gets confusing, BUT, my reading is that this transition rule is specifically intended to rescue anyone that would have been nuked by paragraph (2) (and maybe (3)- (5)?), and not every single EV as of enactment of the IRA. The rest of us (and obviously all F150L's) are governed by (k) effective dates: starting 1/1/2023.

Now, the last piece of the puzzle: is there anywhere in this 755-page monstrosity that specifically nullifies or overrules the existing "old" tax credit rules (unless otherwise amended somewhere between pages 381 - 402)? I confess that I didn't look, but I don't think so, our fellow forum denizens, EV blogs, or press at large would have been all over that.

...

I am biased since I have an MSRP of $80064 (I think I could easily fix that by begging the dealer to sell me the floor mats separately), and I don't qualify based on income limits. But I still believe that I'll be filing for the "old" credit since I'm build week 7/25 and expect I'll take delivery in a few weeks.

Again, we're all just chatting around the virtual campfire here, I don't know that any of us know for sure or are qualified to know at this point (though I wonder if @TaxmanHog has a educated take on all this). Best of luck.

 

[greenne]

FWIW, their interpretation of CA law is not accurate, either.

The law forbids dealerships from requiring non-refundable deposits, which is different from whether they can accept them.

Additionally, a binding contract does not hinge on whether a deposit is or isn't required. The ability to withdraw from a contract doesn't render it "non-binding," either. For example, anytime someone enters into a purchase agreement over a house they are engaging in a binding, but cancelable, contract. There may be fees and/or penalties or certain caveats allowing cancellation without penalty, but the parties can sue one another to enforce the contract thereby rendering it "binding."

Franchise contracts would be another example. Everything in a vehicle transaction is typically "non-binding" primarily because they disclaim that on all the documents until the final signature. It's just one more example of their flagrant abuse of power over individuals because ordinarily the law wouldn't allow people to make false claims, bait with inaccurate pricing schemes, tack on junk fees and install non-existence items, and play fast and loose in verbal representations that would amount to verbal contracts in essentially all other contexts.

I think the reason so many people here are tripping over this is because no one really knows whether what we have is or isn't even a contract let alone whether whatever we have is binding. So basically we've got a community trying to figure out whether we've got a contract at all to hold our dealerships to and now an additional wrinkle, arguably being conflated with the definitional discussion, of whether it is, or what constitutes one if not, a binding contract.

One thing to note, however, is there is at least once case study of a state that is presumably treating these agreements as binding. The person who's truck was sold out from under them to another customer apparently had some kind of action since the dealership was fined by the state, threatened with legal action, and forced to find a suitable replacement. That points to the state, at least, interpreting that as "his" truck, which could only be true if he was operating within the context of a binding contract.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much trying to figure this stuff out. It takes me a few years to teach a student the nuts and bolts of contract law and then they'll take a lifetime perfecting that knowledge in the field while focusing on a very narrow, specific aspect of the broader corpus of contract law.

As I'm reading this I'm not really sure much of it applies to vehicles put in service before Jan 1, 2023.

Follow me-- Pg 401 (https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_of_2022.pdf)

(k) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 22

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para graphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), the amendments made 24 by this section shall apply to vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2022.

(2) FINAL ASSEMBLY.—The amendments made 2 by subsection (b) shall apply to vehicles sold after 3 the date of enactment of this Act. 4

(3) PER VEHICLE DOLLAR LIMITATION AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.—The amendments made by subsections (a) and (e) shall apply to vehicles placed in service after the date on which the proposed guidance described in paragraph (3)(B) of section 9 30D(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 10 added by subsection (e)) is issued by the Secretary 11 of the Treasury (or the Secretary’s delegate).

(4) TRANSFER OF CREDIT.—The amendments 13 made by subsection (g) shall apply to vehicles placed 14 in service after December 31, 2023. 15

(5) ELIMINATION OF MANUFACTURER LIMITA16 TION.—The amendment made by subsection (d) 17 shall apply to vehicles sold after December 31, 2022.

---------

Except for 2,3, 4, 5 everything doesn't take effect..so old rules apply

2- Final assembly-takes effect immediately
3- Per dollar vehicle and related-- says it takes effect "after the date in which proposed guidance is released". The proposed guidance is required to be released NLT Dec 31..but could be sooner. So the way I read this..until the IRS publishes the"rules" we use the old guidance
4- Transfer of credit-- dealer rebate--after Dec 31
5- Mfr limitation--Dec 31-- appears GM and Tesla not eligible until after Dec 31. Ford still hasn't begun phase out under old rules, so they are still in play.


So.....looking at this it appears like the only thing that effect Lightning before Jan 1 is the Assembly requirement AND the Per dollar(MSRP cap)--but he MSRP cap has to dictated in guidance first..which could be anytime between now and Dec 31. (Here's to hoping its closer to Dec 31)

For reference this is what it says about the "guidance":

‘‘(3) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.— 8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including regulations or other guidance which provides for requirements for recordkeeping or information reporting for purposes of administering the requirements of this subsection.
(B) DEADLINE FOR PROPOSED GUIDANCE.—Not later than December 31, 2022, the Secretary shall issue proposed guidance with respect to the requirements under this subsection.’’

 

[Pioneer74]

My head hurts now after reading all that doubletalk lawyerspeak.

 

[ExCivilian]

That's how I'm reading it, as well.

Also, keep in mind these laws are neither written nor passed in a vacuum. Each of the major manufacturers has had input on this bill and will continue to exert influence over the IRS guidelines.

Also in that context is the fact we're headed into a midterm election. We're still about a month shy of maximum impact on voters for this to be signed into law by Biden.

 

[Tyler Durden]

As I'm reading this I'm not really sure much of it applies to vehicles put in service before Jan 1, 2023.

Follow me-- Pg 401 ....

Heh, looks like we cross-posted the same thing! Glad that someone else sees it the way I do (I'm biased to really want the "old" credit).

 

[greenne]

Heh, looks like we cross-posted the same thing! Glad that someone else sees it the way I do (I'm biased to really want the "old" credit).

We're thinking the same way.

Years ago I was a contractor for the FAA.. once you bury your head in government regulations you begin to have the ability to make sense of it. (very little)

Bottom line-- the MSRP stuff appears to be safe until someone in charge tells us otherwise...

My guess is there will be waivers on most of this until the automakers get their act together. Its gonna look really stupid if the Government allows a credit that can't be used. That's uncool anytime, very uncool with midterms coming up. I imagine the DOT/IRS well give the automakers some time to get their duck in a row.

This whole thing reeks of Manchin..he knew exactly what he was doing and did it in the most sly way possible. In the long run I think its a good idea..esp the battery component clause..but its gonna be some pain getting there. So I think a more tolerable phase in time will be enacted.

 

[FordLightningMan]

The only thing that should make things easier is there that there is a government website which explicitly states what vehicles are eligible for EV tax rebates and through which period. Assuming that our admittedly dysfunctional government gets this website updated prior to tax season, we should have a clear as day instruction as to eligibility. That won't make anyone feel better if you click the link and Ford vehicles are ineligible as of the date the bill is signed into law and we lose $7,500; but hopefully we should clearly know if we've been screwed.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml

We're back to binding/non-binding if the Lightning date does change to something before your delivery, rather than December 31st.

 

[ExCivilian]

Bottom line-- the MSRP stuff appears to be safe until someone in charge tells us otherwise...

My guess is there will be waivers on most of this until the automakers get their act together. Its gonna look really stupid if the Government allows a credit that can't be used. That's uncool anytime, very uncool with midterms coming up. I imagine the DOT/IRS well give the automakers some time to get their duck in a row.

This is my best guess, too. That's what I was hinting at when I pointed out they're all sitting at the same table hammering this out.

Sponsored