Would I still qualify for current federal rebate?

[VTbuckeye]

It would not matter to me if Ford didn't increase the delivery fee by $100 after I placed my order. Yes I am price protected at MSRP 79994 (lariat ER max tow and nothing else), but my sticker will say 80094. 8/29 build week. Maybe it will all be solved by having my scales and smart hitch deleted by Ford. I will fing out next week when the stick becomes available. My mom is a CPA and I may ask her about this next time I see her, but it is likely that she will say wait for guidance from sec tres.

Sponsored

 

[greenne]

It would not matter to me if Ford didn't increase the delivery fee by $100 after I placed my order. Yes I am price protected at MSRP 79994 (lariat ER max tow and nothing else), but my sticker will say 80094. 8/29 build week. Maybe it will all be solved by having my scales and smart hitch deleted by Ford. I will fing out next week when the stick becomes available. My mom is a CPA and I may ask her about this next time I see her, but it is likely that she will say wait for guidance from sec tres.

The text of the bill(law) gives some leeway to determine the application of the MSRP guidance. The IRS way very well go off "base MSRP" which means that options and/or Destination do not count. That is the way NYS does it for their EV rebates. That means more models would fall under $80k threshold if the current admin truly wants to skew things towards more usage of the credit.

 

[cvalue13]

Also, I don't see anywhere this bill(law) repeals any of the old tax credit, it just replace it piece by piece. Logic tells me that means the old law is still applicable until it is replaced by a particular revision in the new guidance.

I think you’re absolutely correct here (caveats reemphasized), and since brevity in this forum appears to only attract ire, I’ll add to your point with some moar wurds

Those reporting that *gap-theory* (let’s call it) focus on the “transition“ provision in the bill, read alone, which says:

“
(l) TRANSITION RULE.—Solely for purposes of the application of section 30D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of a taxpayer that—

(1) after December 31, 2021, and before the date of enactment of this Act, purchased, or entered into a written binding contract to purchase, a new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle (as defined in
5 section 30D(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act), and

(2) placed such vehicle in service on or after the date of enactment of this Act,

such taxpayer may elect (at such time, and in such form and manner, as the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s delegate, may prescribe) to treat such vehicle as having been placed in service on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.”

However, reading this provision alone *I think* ignores not only the fact that as you point out there’s no language repealing the current law sooner, but also ignoring the immediately-prior Effective Date provision, which is clear that this new bill - including the “Transition” language - does not become effective until 1/1/23:

(k) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

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

The above-listed carve-outs in (2)-(5) do not include the “transition rule,” so such transition rule Itself does not appear effective until 1/1/23.


And, as you alluded to, the carve-outs in (2)-(5) do individually have effective dates that roll-on prior to 1/1/23 - replacing or adding to the law in place today. Which would be a rather odd thing to do - that is, replacing or adding to a law in place today - if the law wasn’t in still place today.

So to me, this *gap theory* (that when the president signs there’s no longer an EV credit at all until 1/1/23) is pretty nonsensical and derives only from not reading the effective date of the bills language.

What does make sense of the “Transition” language instead, is:

As of 1/1/23 and thereafter, those filing their taxes that both (A) took delivery before 1/1/23, and (B) would otherwise be excluded by the few new provisions that go into effect before 1/1/23 (eg don’t satisfy the North American manufacturing requirement), can elect to apply the “prior” language of the law.

But conversely, those who (A) took delivery before 1/1/23, but (B) were not otherwise excluded by the few new provisions (eg satisfy the NA manufacturing req), took delivery before the remaining new language was effective, and so they need no “transition” treatment.

By way of example: Fiskars delivered after the bill is signed into law do need transition treatment immediately in 2022 tax year (because the NA manufacturing restriction goes into effect at the bill’s signing); but F150L’s do not need transition treatment because before 1/1/23 no language applies to the F150L that is yet effective*

The purportd *gap theory* doesn’t read the entire bill’s language, sees immediate repeal language where none exists, and also creates apparent internal conflicts to the bill’s effective date/transition rule language. The alternative, (I think) better read, considers the entire language of the bill, leaves no internal conflicts to the bill’s effective date/transition rule language, and makes sense on thfacts.

** note that it seems one other limitations may or may not apply to the F150L if and only upon the Secretary providing its interpretive guidance due on or before 12/31/22, but there’s no good crystal ball for that just yet; namely, those provisions that theoretically could go into effect before 1/1/23 upon issuance by the Secretary appear to only relate to the battery mineral/component breakout of the credit, which under the new bill would have the max $7,500 broken into two equal component values for satisfying either or both of the minerals/assemblage features of the battery manufacturing limitations. Some believe the Secretary won’t release this guidance until at least 12/31/22, which if true makes this possibility moot. If the Secretary did release the guidance beforehand, however, I personally have zero clue the degree to which the F150L batteries satisfy either of the battery’s manufacturing requirements - which I suspect is exactly what the Secretary is being given time to do: “interpret” the rules considering details submitted by the manufacturers?

 

[ExCivilian]

It's not particularly relevant when or if the old law ends because that's not the issue. The issue that many are having is that our vehicles, some of which are already en route, are roughly <$100 over the $80K cap. That MSRP cap does go into effect before 1/1/23--there is no ambiguity about that--it's just a matter of when depending on when the Secretary issues guidance.

However, that isn't the panacea once one realizes what that guidance will consist of. As it pertains to MSRP the guidance will clarify whether destination charges are part of "MSRP" and whether one can calculate from "base" MSRP of a product line. As long as the Secretary concludes that one can ignore destination charges and options, then everyone about to pick up our trucks over the next few weeks will qualify for the tax credit.

But why stress oneself out biting nails on whether you'll be able to have your vehicle delivered before these guidelines are published? Contrary to some opinions, I do believe there is impetus to get this bill passed into law and then clarified ASAP because we're in the midst of a mid-term election. Therefore, I consider the fact there may be political implications that people running for office might want to leverage certain parts of this.

Additionally, it's difficult to defend the handwringing and predicting. The bill provides a clear-cut option for anyone in our specific situation: enter into a binding agreement to purchase the EV and your purchase will fall under the old rules. In my opinion, all this effort to understand the new law would be much better utilized in strategizing how to secure these agreements from our respective dealerships.

Also, much less talked about is the total lack of communication from Ford to its customer base on this issue. If the owner of my dealership is to be believed, not only is Ford silent but it's actively subverting attempts of customers securing such agreements from dealerships. I think that should explored by us if for no other reason than the fact that it problematizes Ford's claim to be all in on EVs and its claims to become a 21st century manufacturer on par with the startups. Well, we're seeing the responses from the startups and we're seeing the (non) response of Ford and the two are incomparable. I continually check Farley's twitter feed but have yet to see a single tweet regarding this--not even an "our legal team is exploring options" and that silence is deafening to me.

 

[RidetheLightning]

Additionally, it's difficult to defend the handwringing and predicting. The bill provides a clear-cut option for anyone in our specific situation: enter into a binding agreement to purchase the EV and your purchase will fall under the old rules. In my opinion, all this effort to understand the new law would be much better utilized in strategizing how to secure these agreements from our respective dealerships.

I’m a big proponent of, once you correctly define the situation you’re in, you immediately move on to what you can control and what you can’t. I can’t:

1. Take away all of Biden’s pens, or
2. Convince the Treasury Secretary to go on vacation until 12/31 so I/we can get our trucks with the credit we reserved and ordered under the assumption we could use.

What I can do:

1. Try to convince my dealer to do a binding purchase agreement. So far the answer is a clear “No” but I am helping them to understand the entire situation - they’re not up to speed yet. (I just got up to speed yesterday)

2. Bake a cake for my dealer? Cookies? Say nice things about them on social media? I don’t know, open to options here.

Otherwise, there’s nothing to worry about because there’s nothing we can control.

 

[cvalue13]

That MSRP cap does go into effect before 1/1/23--there is no ambiguity about that--it's just a matter of when depending on when the Secretary issues guidance.

show your work here, because the bill’s effective date provisions certainly don’t say this

In the effective date provision, the amendment’s section title (in red, below) is “Per Vehicle Dollar Limitation And Related Requirements” but that is merely the section’s title; the substantive provisions referenced in the effective date amendment are only subsections (a) and (e) (in blue, below)

Those sub-sections (a) and (e) don’t deal with the headline MSRP limits, but instead deal per-vehicle tax credit dollar limitations and specifically with the portions of the bill that address splitting the $7,500 credit into dual components related to battery minerals and composition (in yellow below)

The MSRP limitations are addressed in sub-section (f), which is not among the carve-outs to the effective date clause, and thereby does not become effective until the general effective date of the bill: 1/1/23

 

[RidetheLightning]

Those sub-sections (a) and (e) don’t deal with the headline MSRP limits, but instead deal per-vehicle tax credit dollar limitations and specifically with the portions of the bill that address splitting the $7,500 credit into dual components related to battery minerals and composition (in yellow below)

The MSRP limitations are addressed in sub-section (f), which is not among the carve-outs to the effective date clause, and thereby does not become effective until the general effective date of the bill: 1/1/23

Eureka! It would appear that you’re right. It didn’t help that the “Effective Date” portion and the portion it applied to were 20 pages from each other, nor that the title of that section was “PER VEHICLE DOLLAR LIMITATION” which could be interpreted as MSRP. Thank you from someone without as keen an eye for complex legal documents. The final adjustments (Manchin?) to the bill that made it more complex certainly didn’t help, but I think you’ve got the right interpretation here. Thanks again.

The numbers 373 and 393 will forever remind me of this weekend - the beginning of the EV credit amendment to the Effective Date section.

 

[greenne]

show your work here, because the bill’s effective date provisions certainly don’t say this

In the effective date provision, the amendment’s section title (in red, below) is “Per Vehicle Dollar Limitation And Related Requirements” but that is merely the section’s title; the substantive provisions referenced in the effective date amendment are only subsections (a) and (e) (in blue, below)

Those sub-sections (a) and (e) don’t deal with the headline MSRP limits, but instead deal per-vehicle tax credit dollar limitations and specifically with the portions of the bill that address splitting the $7,500 credit into dual components related to battery minerals and composition (in yellow below)

The MSRP limitations are addressed in sub-section (f), which is not among the carve-outs to the effective date clause, and thereby does not become effective until the general effective date of the bill: 1/1/23

I can't argue with this..not at all. Most analysis i see online conclude the same...only thing effective in 2022 is the assembly requirements

 

[cvalue13]

Eureka! It would appear that you’re right. It didn’t help that the “Effective Date” portion and the portion it applied to were 20 pages from each other, nor that the title of that section was “PER VEHICLE DOLLAR LIMITATION” which could be interpreted as MSRP. Thank you from someone without as keen an eye for complex legal documents. The final adjustments (Manchin?) to the bill that made it more complex certainly didn’t help, but I think you’ve got the right interpretation here. Thanks again.

The numbers 373 and 393 will forever remind me of this weekend - the beginning of the EV credit amendment to the Effective Date section.

Probably goes without saying, but I will anyway: I’m here only trying to give my best read of the bill, with a conclusion that squares with folks’ worries around here, many trying to prematurely prognosticate their potential situation before the bill is finalized or the IRS issues guidance.

Mine, too, is premature prognostication, but is I think a reasonable read that leaves open the possibility that people taking delivery of F150L’s during 2022 can be optimistic. I hope that is the case.

 

[ExCivilian]

That interpretation hinges on whether the current law remains in place after this one passes, which I disagree with as does every manufacturer who has issued a public statement on the subject to the best of my knowledge.

EDIT: as to why they would do that, the only manufacturers this adversely impacts are foreign manufacturers and a few thousand domestic consumers.

 

[cvalue13]

That interpretation hinges on whether the current law remains in place after this one passes,

you’re wondering if the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 remains in place after the passing of these amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986?

the bill only amends the portions of the code it amends, and those amendments aren’t effective until 1/1/23 - with one material exception: the NA manufacturing requirement which goes into effect at signing, and causes Fisker and other non-domestic manufacturers to be in a far different posture than Ford

 

[JediGamerCT]

Additionally, it's difficult to defend the handwringing and predicting. The bill provides a clear-cut option for anyone in our specific situation: enter into a binding agreement to purchase the EV and your purchase will fall under the old rules. In my opinion, all this effort to understand the new law would be much better utilized in strategizing how to secure these agreements from our respective dealerships.

Also, much less talked about is the total lack of communication from Ford to its customer base on this issue. If the owner of my dealership is to be believed, not only is Ford silent but it's actively subverting attempts of customers securing such agreements from dealerships. I think that should explored by us if for no other reason than the fact that it problematizes Ford's claim to be all in on EVs and its claims to become a 21st century manufacturer on par with the startups. Well, we're seeing the responses from the startups and we're seeing the (non) response of Ford and the two are incomparable. I continually check Farley's twitter feed but have yet to see a single tweet regarding this--not even an "our legal team is exploring options" and that silence is deafening to me.

You hit the nail on the head here. The non-response from Ford on this is frustrating, and it doesn’t take much to reassure your loyal customers who will be your biggest cheerleaders, or if we somehow get screwed out of the tax credit, gloomleaders.

 

[cvalue13]

The non-response from Ford on this is frustrating, and it doesn’t take much to reassure your loyal customers who will be your biggest cheerleaders, or if we somehow get screwed out of the tax credit, gloomleaders.

this seems like misplaced frustration, and unfortunately a bit of looking for blood from a turnip

missplaced frustration because, but for some nonsense here and there on forums like this, (1) the bill as clear as it is going to get about Ford’s posture until 12/31/22, and (2) the bill is not going to be finalized in any actionable way until 12/31/22. put differently, in part Ford isn’t saying anything because there isn’t anything to say.

looking for blood from a turnip because, as much tax advice to individual consumers as Ford is ever going to broadcast is already on their website (ie, nothing):

Conversely, the only reason we see comments and guidance coming out of Fisker, Audi, Porsche, Kia and other non-domestic manufactures is because they are non-domestic manufacturers about to lose the tax credits but for the “binding contract” transition rule.

(Meanwhile, GM also has little to say because it is past the prior 200K cap, so nobody is anything but optimistic about being potentially eligible again in 2023. GM’s public messaging onlyamounts to, “yay we might get credits again, but boo making batteries is hard.”)

 

[ExCivilian]

the only reason we see comments and guidance coming out of Fisker, Audi, Porsche, Kia and other non-domestic manufactures is because they are non-domestic manufacturers

Fisker, along with Rivian, are both Domestic manufacturers--right here in SoCal (LA and Irvine, respectively), in fact.

The non-response from Ford on this is frustrating, and it doesn’t take much to reassure your loyal customers who will be your biggest cheerleaders, or if we somehow get screwed out of the tax credit, gloomleaders.

Yes, it's frustrating and strange given what they've been saying about transitioning into a 21st century auto maker. Every opportunity they've been given to shine they instead appear to be the same ol' company.

While Ford is under no obligation to project that they care about their customers, they will be compared to other companies willing to do so. For example, this is the start of the email Nissan sent to its customers:

To help put you in the best position for potential eligibility for the $7,500 federal EV tax credit, indicate your acceptance to the Agreement to Purchase a Nissan ARIYA by clicking the "I Agree" button at the bottom of the Agreement. [*]

If anyone is interested in trying to secure some kind of binding agreement with their dealership, Nissan's "Agreement to Purchase" is one of the better that I've read:

AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE
This Agreement to Purchase is a binding contract between the undersigned Customer and Nissan North America, Inc. (NNA) for the purchase by the Customer of a new Nissan Ariya from an authorized Nissan dealer of Customer’s choice.
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
Reservation/Deposit: Customer hereby represents that the Customer has made an online reservation for a Nissan Ariya and paid a $500 deposit. NNA represents that it has received a reservation and deposit of $500 from the undersigned Customer for first access to an opportunity to purchase an Ariya of Customer’s preferred configuration when it is available.
Timing of Delivery: The ultimate sale of a specific Ariya vehicle will be made by an authorized and independent Nissan dealer, on terms to be negotiated between Customer and the selling dealer, which will include vehicle pricing. NNA will not be a party to that specific sales agreement. NNA agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts, subject to the terms of this Agreement, to deliver new Ariya vehicles to Nissan dealers in order for Customer’s dealer of choice to deliver a new Ariya to Customer.
Agreement Not Transferable: This Agreement is not transferable or assignable by Customer.
No Tax Advice: Customer agrees to consult with his/her own tax advisor concerning his/her eligibility for any potential tax credits. NNA makes no representations or guarantees that Customer will be eligible for any tax credit based upon this Agreement under current or future law, and assumes no obligation to defend Customer in any tax proceeding.
Force Majeure: This Agreement does not create any liability for Nissan if any failure to perform is due to an event beyond Nissan’s control, including, but not limited to, any act of God, terrorism, war, political insurgence, insurrection, riot, civil unrest, act of civil or military authority, uprising, unavailability of materials, strike, earthquake, flood, pandemic or any other natural or man-made eventuality outside of Nissan’s control.
Limitation of Liability: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE LIMITS OF APPLICABLE LAW, SHALL NISSAN BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT OR INCIDENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF BUSINESS OR LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY, REGARDLESS OF THE BASIS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY CLAIM, DAMAGE, LOSS OR EXPENSE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER NISSAN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY CLAIMS, DAMAGES, LOSSES OR EXPENSES.
Applicable Law, Class Action and Jury Trial Waiver: This Agreement, its subject matter, its formation, and any non-contractual disputes or claims related thereto, are governed by the laws of the State of Tennessee. IN ADDITION, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NO CLAIM UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE JOINED TO ANY OTHER CLAIM FROM OTHER CURRENT OR FORMER USERS OF THE NISSAN WEBSITE OR OTHERWISE RELATED TO THE ARIYA VEHICLES OR ANY OTHER RESERVATIONS. NO CLAIM BROUGHT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION. CUSTOMER HEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER ARISING, AND WHETHER SOUNDING IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE. CUSTOMER AGREES THAT NISSAN MAY FILE A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THIS PARAGRAPH WITH ANY COURT AS WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND BARGAINED-FOR AGREEMENT AMONG US TO IRREVOCABLY WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY AND THAT ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING WHATSOEVER BETWEEN US RELATING TO THESE TERMS SHALL INSTEAD BE TRIED IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY A JUDGE SITTING WITHOUT A JURY.
Severable: If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable in a judicial proceeding, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement and shall be inoperative, and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain operative and binding on the parties.
By clicking “I AGREE” below, the Customer is providing his/her electronic signature that you have read and agree to this binding Agreement to Purchase a Nissan Ariya through an authorized and independent Nissan dealer, on terms to be negotiated and agreed upon between Customer and the selling dealer.

 

[cvalue13]

Fisker, along with Rivian, are both Domestic manufacturers--right here in SoCal (LA and Irvine, respectively), in fact.

“In fact,”

(1) I didn’t mention Rivian (for good reason), and

(2) Fisker’s communications have been about the Ocean, which is built in Austria

Why did I use short-hand and merely mention Fisker and not spell out these nuances about the Ocean and Austria? Because I leaned toward brevity instead of the likelihood of being un-substantively and incorrectly “corrected” for no apparent reason other than sport.

Sponsored