CA state EV credit

[KL670]

We’re considering another Tesla. However, we’ve already taken advantage of the $2500 CA state tax credit twice last year already. If we buy another, are we still eligible for it again? Also, have there been income requirement changes? Thanks for your input.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

However, we’ve already taken advantage of the $2500 CA state tax credit twice last year already. If we buy another, are we still eligible for it again? Also, have there been income requirement changes? Thanks for your input.

It's a bit ambiguous, but I am reasonably sure that just two rebates are allowed per individual (with caveats on when prior rebates were claimed - for rebates claimed last year the limit applies).

So if you have a spouse, whichever one of you did not previously apply for two rebates, should apply for the next rebate. That is my understanding anyway. I am not a lawyer.

The title of the car can still be in both of your names. Again, I am not a lawyer.

I looked for a FAQ on this and last I checked they didn't specifically address this obvious question.

It seems fair that each individual should be able to claim two rebates, in any case. Marital status seems like it should be irrelevant.

 

[hugh_jassol]

If only there was a website for the program....

Eligibility guidelines

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If only there was a website for the program....

Eligibility guidelines

I'm sure the OP has read this. Even if they haven't, though, I can personally say that I wish that they had specifically addressed this obvious question somewhere on that site (at the time I looked, I could not find the answer - I'm not looking today so maybe they have it answered in their FAQ now).

In the end, it's very clear that the rebate limit applies to the individual (well, single entity, whatever that means), but on the other hand the income limit is applied to the household. So it gives one pause.

But in the end it seems pretty clear it's an individual limit - so each person gets limited to two rebates. That being said, I STILL wish they would definitively state that somewhere.

EDIT: I checked the FAQ, again:

"Except for rental, public, and car share fleets, no single entity is eligible to receive more than two CVRP rebates either via direct purchase and/or lease as of January 1, 2015. All rebates issued prior to this date do not count toward the two rebate limit.

Individuals or businesses that have met the rebate limit with non-fuel cell vehicles may apply for one additional rebate for a fuel cell vehicle.

Traditional rental car fleets and car share fleets are capped at 20 rebates per calendar year. Public fleets are limited to 30 rebates per calendar year."

There is ambiguity here. To me it sounds like each individual gets two.

 

[hugh_jassol]

The site states

Except for rental, public and car share fleets, no single entity is eligible to receive more than two CVRP rebates either via direct purchase and/or lease as of January 1, 2015.

So.... I take "no single entity" to be the same as "household" or maybe more specifically as a single-entity for tax purposes (like, you file taxes as married). But, like you, IANAL

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The site states


So.... I take "no single entity" to be the same as "household" or maybe more specifically as a single-entity for tax purposes (like, you file taxes as married). But, like you, IANAL

Exactly. You are showing it can definitely be interpreted either way, but the applications are done in a single person’s name - not jointly. That name must show on the purchase documents. If you decide to interpret it as two rebates per person, you definitely need to make sure that ALL required substantiating documentation is matched to the person who is claiming the rebate. Read the rules and documentation requirements before buying the car and get all the ducks in a row.

 

[markb1]

The site states


So.... I take "no single entity" to be the same as "household" or maybe more specifically as a single-entity for tax purposes (like, you file taxes as married). But, like you, IANAL

A married couple is still two entities, IMO, (Maybe three, since each spouse can have separate property, and they can also have shared community property. But that's stretching!) They can file taxes separately or together, but whichever way they file taxes, it shouldn't matter, because the California rebate is not a tax rebate.

 

[markb1]

If you look the eligibility guidelines (Eligibility guidelines), it says you must:

"Be an individual, business*, nonprofit or government entity..."

Then it later goes on to say:

"...no single entity is eligible to receive more than two CVRP rebates either via direct purchase and/or lease as of January 1, 2015."

So I think we should assume that entity means the same thing throughout the page.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

but whichever way they file taxes, it shouldn't matter, because the California rebate is not a tax rebate.

Presumably if they filed jointly and that still kept them under the $300k gross income limit for the program, that could matter, though? The individual limit is $150k. So if individuals filed separately you could have a situation where the couple could only claim two (where one person makes more than $150k gross).

Am I thinking about that wrong?

 

[Chasis]

My friend, married couple and filing jointly, bought 2 tesla and received the state rebate for both cars. You should be safe unless your income exceeds whatever limit they have it on the program.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My friend, married couple and filing jointly, bought 2 tesla and received the state rebate for both cars. You should be safe unless your income exceeds whatever limit they have it on the program.

The question was regarding claiming more than two rebates.

 

[markb1]

Presumably if they filed jointly and that still kept them under the $300k gross income limit for the program, that could matter, though? The individual limit is $150k. So if individuals filed separately you could have a situation where the couple could only claim two (where one person makes more than $150k gross).

Am I thinking about that wrong?

That's a good point. It seems like they didn't really think this through when writing the rules.