Current version of the form doesn't even ask what trim version the vehicle is. It does ask for VIN, which is a simple match to the information they can get from manufacturers. I suspect that next year the form will include a line item asking for MSRP. You can put whatever number you like there, but when/if you get audited all your wishes will not be considered.
I do agree with this perspective. I do not believe any manual review is necessary so the idea that the difficulty of conducting a manual review would mandate an interpretation one way or the other is unlikely, in my opinion. I don't understand why people believe the DMV, IRS, and other government entities are still operating in a 1950s schema in regards to tracking these kinds of things. It's also one of the many reasons I caution people from playing fast and loose with the $7,500 incentive rules.
So far the states that interpret their incentive rules like this use the base price for every trim other than the Platinum, which does not have any options for the items that distinguish the other trims.
I don't think there is any incentive for government, IRS, or manufacturers to try and prevent the uptake of EVs by increasing the price or interpreting rules that would put common MSRPs above threshold (ignoring the current shortages that may be motivating Ford to price its products the way it's currently doing, which is to say they do seem to be deliberately pricing the ERs above incentive threshold but this appears to be a unique situation).
We have many jurisdiction with a wide variety of law and procedures, I'm sure there are plenty of examples where a lower value is used, but my actual experience in Massachusetts, they used the bottom line value with all the bells and whistles included for sales tax to the state and excise tax to the city/town.
I do agree with your suggestion to err on the conservative side of interpretation if one wants to be as sure as one can be in their purchase.
You are correct, it does clearly state MSRP. However, when building the truck, you will find the “base“ MSRP, and the “total” MSRP. So which one will they enforce? i would err on the base.
AMEN, though in my prior career experiences, data sharing agreements with some states comes easier than others, for example, Delaware was/is a tightwad about sharing anything, my fellow revenue officers had to use antiquated procedures to summons the most basic information, while in Massachusetts and many other states, the DMV actually loaned out a data terminal installed at our Boston office for clerks to pull information directly as needed, when collector or auditor needed the information for targeted enforcement.
Yes, from all EV manufacturers, brings back back memories of the time it took to build the data systems to enforce the provisions of ACA & Shared Responsibility Penalty (actually a tax) but still called a penalty, SMH ...... I'm glad to be retired now!! [/tangent]
I'm laughing right now because I knew while I was writing it the reason many people believe those entities operate in a 1950s schema--it's because in may ways they do!
This is why I think it's not contradictory to believe the DMV and/or IRS could be both woefully behind the times in one aspect while surprisingly adept in another. Perhaps we can call this the Clouseau Principle.
It doesn't matter what you would choose. It matters what the IRS will choose. And IRS will not be building the truck on the Ford site. They would be getting a single number from Ford which, incidentally, is the same number that Ford reports to IRS as revenue.
You seem to think that "the government" is a single monolithic entity. In fact it's a multitude of of departments with different incentives and motivations. Sometimes diametrically opposite motivations, even within the same department. IRS primary function has nothing to do with EVs. Their function is to collect the taxes owed, and enforce tax laws.
In the context of this conversation, where we are discussing a $7,500 EV tax incentive, the "government" referred to was Congress, which is a "single monolithic entity" in its decisions regardless of any snarky retorts that it's comprised of two distinct buildings within which many individuals operate.
Agree to disagree. The law was passed and took effect in August. IRS will publish final regulations in March or April. Whatever incentivizing takes place will not be impacted by IRS. Heck, most people won't understand what the law does for years to come. IRS will be writing the rules primarily to make the best sense of the gobledigooky language produced by America's distinctly criminal class. Creating incentives will not enter into it.
I have no idea why you continue to bang on this drum--I'm not suggesting the IRS will "create" incentives for EV adoption.
You believe the Treasury Department and the IRS within it, both established by Congress, which itself has the power of the purse, doesn't answer to Congress and could somehow operate oppositional to Congress' intent without consequence?
