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

[greenne]

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.

I am assuming that is how they will disseminate the info regarding the new EV tax credits. They'll just use the matrix to determine YES or NO and put it on the government website. However I don't think it will revert back to the day it was signed..it would just be applicable from that date forward.

(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).

And if the government has any sense whatsoever the guidance will be issued on Dec 31, 2022 so everything is tidy.

Sponsored

 

[Tyler Durden]

(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).

Right, but check it out,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/30D

(e)(3)(B) seems to refer specifically to the final two-quarter phase-out of the "old" credit, i.e. the two quarters in which a manufacturer (not Ford) is eligible for the 7500 / 4 = $1875 credit. I'm too lazy to figure which lobbyist (Toyota?) scored that cheddar.

 

[Simpso57]

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.

The CA law does not allow dealers to accept non-refundable deposits: Dealers cannot "Fail to refund any purchase money, including purchase deposits, upon demand by a consumer at any time prior to the consumer's signing of a vehicle purchase agreement." by definition that language is non-refundable. How can a dealer accept a non-refundable deposit that is refundable by law?

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.

Fair enough. But at this point the only terms and conditions that are applicable to orders are right here, and there is no language supporting anything being "binding." Paragraph 8 says exactly the opposite, actually. The only potential binding part of it is the deposit if the dealer makes it non-refundable. But I understand your point that the order is arguably an agreement.

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.

I agree with this, no one has the answer at this point. Which is often the case with new tax law. I am finding it interesting to follow, there are lots of car buyers looking at this issue right now.

 

[Simpso57]

I just skimmed the remaining replies. Great detective work! Guidance is obviously necessary to get the final word. I will look at the quoted language in the bill more closely. Would be awesome to see language that it doesn't start until next year. I am biased towards the "old" credit too....

 

[Amps]

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

Remembering that the contract is between orderer and dealer and that Ford may issue guidance to the dealers in the next few days...I would be really pressing the dealer GM to try to figure out a way to make your order binding if you have a VIN. "Time is of the essence."

I say this realizing that dealers would love to place your ordered truck on the lot as inventory.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Right, but check it out,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/30D

(e)(3)(B) seems to refer specifically to the final two-quarter phase-out of the "old" credit, i.e. the two quarters in which a manufacturer (not Ford) is eligible for the 7500 / 4 = $1875 credit. I'm too lazy to figure which lobbyist (Toyota?) scored that cheddar.

OK, I think I see what's going on here, the above is the old rule, the new rule (e)(3)(B) is part of this new IRA, and points to the weird battery metals requirements. @greenne had it right in post #55, we need to wait on "guidance" for those (i.e. how the hell are we taxpayers and Ford et. al. going to figure out where all these battery metals are coming from). So...we're probably safe there since I doubt that gets sorted before 12/31/2022

 

[FordLightningMan]

Remembering that the contract is between orderer and dealer and that Ford may issue guidance to the dealers in the next few days...I would be really pressing the dealer GM to try to figure out a way to make your order binding if you have a VIN. "Time is of the essence."

I say this realizing that dealers would love to place your ordered truck on the lot as inventory.

I work in finance and deal with lawyers and legal documents regularly. We have boiler plate documents that we utilize often, occasionally our counterparties will come back and ask for the documents to be amended. When this happens, they might as well be asking for my CEO's first born child.

What happens is our boiler plate documents were prepared by a ton of lawyers and reviewed many times to ensure there's not a single word that will cause unwanted liability. If anything is asked to be changed, the initial response is no. If there is continued pushback, we need to bring in a bunch of lawyers at excessive costs to see if our boiler plate agreements may be amended. Often after the costly review, the lawyers say "changes not accepted."

As much as I want my dealer to provide me a binding contract with my VIN included, I understand this may not be as simple of a task as it sounds. I've been on the other side of the table, so I really can't have any ill will at the dealer's apprehension for my request. Ultimately a binding contract opens the door for potential legal liability that they have carefully avoided with their current well crafted boiler plate documents.

 

[Simpso57]

@greenne and @Tyler Durden I reviewed your posts and.... can't refute them. It does appear that in our particular situation (ordered F150 and expect delivery in 2022), we are clear so long as our cars are "placed in service" on or before December 31, 2022. The Transition rule is intended to address people caught in parts of the bill not applicable to us.

You make me feel better! Still need guidance, but there is reason to be very optimistic.

 

[greenne]

@greenne and @Tyler Durden I reviewed your posts and.... can't refute them. It does appear that in our particular situation (ordered F150 and expect delivery in 2022), we are clear so long as our cars are "placed in service" on or before December 31, 2022. The Transition rule is intended to address people caught in parts of the bill not applicable to us.

You make me feel better! Still need guidance, but there is reason to be very optimistic.

No worries...I think everyone is in the dark (with exception of non North American which doesn't apply to us) until the Treasury Sec issues guidance. Knowing how government works thats probably gonna be later rather than sooner. I'm cautiously optimistic the 2022s are safe.

I'm hoping that some semi intelligent people take a look at this and realize there needs to be some waivers thrown out or this is going to drive people AWAY rather than encourage people to adopt EVs. I gotta think the Biden administration realizes that...

Unfortunately I see the waivers more likely dealing with battery content vs income/msrp so it may not help future Lightning orders.

 

[ExCivilian]

The CA law does not allow dealers to accept non-refundable deposits: Dealers cannot "Fail to refund any purchase money, including purchase deposits, upon demand by a consumer at any time prior to the consumer's signing of a vehicle purchase agreement." by definition that language is non-refundable. How can a dealer accept a non-refundable deposit that is refundable by law?

I don't think we should spend too much time on this because no dealership, CA or otherwise, will sell a car they don't possess. In fact, since it's not even theirs until it's invoiced I don't even know if they can sell it...it's not theirs to sell. Regardless, for a whole list of reasons, some that have been posted already, dealerships aren't going to conduct business like this so the conversation is moot.

That said, a limitation on one party in a transaction does not automatically rise to limitations on the other party. As you quote, and note, it's illegal for a CA dealership to accept a deposit and then refuse to refund it. You haven't, as far as I know, cited any CA law that precludes me, the consumer, from offering such a deposit.

Tesla's deposits, for example, are non-refundable; they're called "order fees."

That said, as I noted earlier, none of this matters because this issue does not dictate whether a contract is "binding" or not. Binding, in the context of contract law, means a contract that is legally enforceable.

If you want to attempt this, you need to approach the owner of a dealership, offer them a non-refundable order fee, and sign/counter-sign a CA Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement. I don't think any CA dealership will do this but those are the steps you'd need to take in order for this adhere to this upcoming law as it's currently written.

 

[bydabeach]

I work in finance and deal with lawyers and legal documents regularly. We have boiler plate documents that we utilize often, occasionally our counterparties will come back and ask for the documents to be amended. When this happens, they might as well be asking for my CEO's first born child.

What happens is our boiler plate documents were prepared by a ton of lawyers and reviewed many times to ensure there's not a single word that will cause unwanted liability. If anything is asked to be changed, the initial response is no. If there is continued pushback, we need to bring in a bunch of lawyers at excessive costs to see if our boiler plate agreements may be amended. Often after the costly review, the lawyers say "changes not accepted."

As much as I want my dealer to provide me a binding contract with my VIN included, I understand this may not be as simple of a task as it sounds. I've been on the other side of the table, so I really can't have any ill will at the dealer's apprehension for my request. Ultimately a binding contract opens the door for potential legal liability that they have carefully avoided with their current well crafted boiler plate documents.

Yup. Very familiar with this. I sent an e-mail to my dealer asking if we can prepare binding agreement, and no response. When I discussed this issue at the dealer, it seems almost every little thing with Lightnings has to be approved by Ford. If it is a contract/legal issue, it could take weeks (maybe years!!) to get approval. Just going to roll with what we have (signed order and two deposits) and the guidance above.

 

[bydabeach]

Not related to the income limit, but I had changed the stock 20” All-season Tires to 275/60R20 BSW ALL-TERRAIN tires based on this thread and reviews. That caused my MSRP to go over $80,000, and that was a problem for the new Bill passed by Congress. My dealer was able to get the tires changed back to stock tires, and the rep said the ATV tires have higher rolling resistance and are noisier for whatever that is worth.

 

[DKZB]

Yup. Very familiar with this. I sent an e-mail to my dealer asking if we can prepare binding agreement, and no response. When I discussed this issue at the dealer, it seems almost every little thing with Lightnings has to be approved by Ford. If it is a contract/legal issue, it could take weeks (maybe years!!) to get approval. Just going to roll with what we have (signed order and two deposits) and the guidance above.

I had a very different experience with my dealer. At first they suggested not to worry about and that they hadn't heard from Ford that they didn't qualify. I pushed just a little and asked for a "binding agreement" that we could waive in the IRS's face if it came down to it. The sales manager, who handles all their EV orders, had no problem putting together a written "binding" purchase agreement as an insurance policy. I am going there today with my Driver's License to complete this. I will report back.

 

[cvalue13]

The IRS gestapo are going to see that I moved my F150 Lightning 5 feet and that only 74% of the energy came from solar arrays! The horror! Let me put this into perspective, because I understand if we math this out, there will be a problem eventually. It's not my fault that the laws that are ambiguous and non-specific as far as what qualifies and what doesn't. Getting a 20k credit under the solar system is the smallest water drop where individuals, businesses routinely get $1M+ in credits. It's an incentive for a reason and if it's later determined that it's a non-qualifier, no problem I'll deal with that then.

Further I am quite sure that anybody arguing the current law language would win, especially combined with Ford's language on their website:

"When the grid goes down, keep the house powered up."

"More than you ever imagined from an all-electric future."
A new age for Ford F-150 is here. Electric powered with your life in mind.

"INTELLIGENT BACKUP POWER"
If the lights go out at home, rest easy. Your F-150® Lightning™ has the ability to power your home when connected to the 80-amp Ford Charge Station Pro and Home Integration System.
"STEP UP WHEN THE POWER’S DOWN"
If the grid goes dark, Intelligent Backup Power and your F-150® Lightning™ can save the day. * And what’s in your fridge.

"IT’S READY TO WORK, EVEN WHEN PARKED"
If the power goes out in your neighborhood, rest easy. * You’ve got an F-150® Lightning.™

"STAND UP TO YOUR OUTAGE"
Your F150 Lightning with extended range battery can power your home for three days. or even up to 10, if usage is properly rationed.


All of this with big graphics, extremely convincing language along with the fact that I lost power for 30+ days with Hurricane Laura. I think I'll be more than fine, but I will let you know how It ends up.

If all you are saying is, “hey, I don’t mind taking the risk that I’m audited, or paying the penalties if I ‘lose’ the audit,” then nobody here can refute your risk appetite!

But if you ARE audited, there is zero ambiguous about the solar storage incentive language, and you will ‘lose’ the audit and be subject to applicable penalties (on top of recoupment of the u paid taxes).

With pun intended, I say: go ahead, ride the Lightning!

 

[ColoradoHunter]

My head hurts now after reading all that doubletalk lawyerspeak.

Exactly why they write it that way!

Sponsored