Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model X may qualify for 50% business write off.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
If this is the infamous Hummer/SUV tax deduction that keeps getting resurrected, it would be poetic justice if the X qualifies. One problem is timing, anyone basing a purchase on decision on receiving the credit might have to wait until Congressional approval in December, then only have 2-3 weeks to order and take delivery.

- - - Updated - - -

^^^ I can't answer the above (my wife probably can) but I do know if you buy it as a business vehicle, it's only supposed to be driven for business...

The infamous Hummer or gaz guzzler loophole rewarded people who used huge SUVs for personal use, as long as they did some business with their vehicles.
 
Upon looking at the link you had in your post, It seems that you either need to meet A or B and it has to be either 4 wheel drive or 6000 lbs. This means that it doesn't matter how much it weighs as it is 4 wheel drive. Since our lord and savior Elon said you could fold the seats flat, I can assume that you are able to meet requirement A and are therefore qualified for the tax deduction. I am not an accountant nor am I a tax lawyer, so don't take my word as absolute fact, but I am very interested in seeing if it still qualifies in 2016 since that will be when I will take delivery of my car.
 
Those IRS rules are very anti-environment. Government has its hands in TOO much. But we do need a way to charge importers (China goods, etc.) for their environmental impact (our breathing their coal emissions). I wonder if Trump will side more with protecting our environment from China (through charging China for their environmental impact on us, or bombing their coal burning factories) or more with some other thing?

- - - Updated - - -

I checked the clearance is 7.2" on the so option #5 is out of the question. Do any of the first four criteria fit? This is huge for small business owners to purchase the vehicle.

My math disagrees, using your number (assuming the null between "the so" is your own personal X prototype with exact production dimensions that you get to measure yourself):

$ dc
7.2 2.54*pq
18.28
$

It's as if they wanted to get only .28 over the rule. It's as if they built the spec according to the rule. Don't be surprised if the rule goes away and the specs lax out of that and into other purposes.

I have a problem with the IRS saying you get an incentive for driving a vehicle that is intentionally bad at handling and bad at environmental impact; they ought to make it solely on cargo carriage, not on its particular inability to be environmentally good, even forcing vehicles that could be cleaner to be dirtier on purpose. What the hell!!! Grrrrrr
 
Last edited:
I have a problem with the IRS saying you get an incentive for driving a vehicle that is intentionally bad at handling and bad at environmental impact; they ought to make it solely on cargo carriage, not on its particular inability to be environmentally good, even forcing vehicles that could be cleaner to be dirtier on purpose. What the hell!!! Grrrrrr

The IRS did not intentionally create this, that's why it's called a loophole. The IRS set guidelines for when a vehicle became "equipment" rather than an "automobile". They did not anticipate that "automobiles" would become big enough and/or heavy enough to pass the test as "equipment". Hence the reference to the Hummer. All the discussion about 25% write off or 50% write off pertains to the depreciation rules for all "equipment". Congress changes these rules from year to year based upon the economy and an attempt to incentivize capital expenditures by businesses. It's just a question of whether your vehicle falls under the rules for "automobiles" or the rules for "equipment". Then apply whatever rules are in place that year for that category.
 
Those IRS rules are very anti-environment. Government has its hands in TOO much. But we do need a way to charge importers (China goods, etc.) for their environmental impact (our breathing their coal emissions). I wonder if Trump will side more with protecting our environment from China (through charging China for their environmental impact on us, or bombing their coal burning factories) or more with some other thing?

Don't want to digress here - but if you don't like the smoke coming from the bakers' oven stop buying the bread. And there are ways to resolve disagreements that are not throwing bombs on people- not that the U.S. Disagrees with China's carbon on policy. It's convenient to externalize ecocide.

Back on thread, agree taxes for business uses should be based on criteria of fitness for business use. However it is a bit ironic that I haven't heard the majority propose actual business use intents. I am still ok w that however.
 
Title: Tesla Model X will probably qualify for the Hummer Tax Loophole. What does that mean?
Posted September 8, 2015 by Charles Morris
Charged EVs | Tesla Model X will probably qualify for the Hummer Tax Loophole. What does that mean?

Barry Brents, a tax attorney and expert on EV incentives, burst our bubble.
“The 2015 overall cap on section 179 deductions is so low ($25,000 with a $200,000 cost limit) that the benefit would probably only be a little better than regular depreciation deductions for most businesses,” Brents told Charged. “Unfortunately, businesses couldn’t claim section 179 deductions for a fleet of new Teslas, since the already low $25,000 cap gets reduced dollar for dollar to the extent that the total cost of 179 property exceeds $200,000.”
 
Again I wonder if part of your electric bill can be used as a tax deduction as well since a corporate car gets to deduct fuel costs.
I've heard that when you try to deduct portions of your home expenses as business expenses for say a home office that the restrictions are such that it becomes not worth it and it raises the probability of an audit.
if you drove 50 miles a day and say that used 20kw and your electricity rate was $0.13 then you'd be paying $2.60 and if you did this every day then you'd be paying about $950 in electricity.
Now if you deducted that at a 30% tax rate that would only save you $100 a year.
If I looked at it the other way and someone offered me to pay $100 to reduce the risk of an audit each year, I would probably pay it.
 
^^^ I can't answer the above (my wife probably can) but I do know if you buy it as a business vehicle, it's only supposed to be driven for business. Mileage is to be tracked and recorded in the event of an IRS audit - violate this at your own risk. On a gasoline vehicle, the fuel is also tax deductible which brings up an interesting scenario. Can you deduct the cost for charging?

Tracking business mileage is a real PITA, although there are apps for that now.

I didn't do it one year back in 2004, and it came up in my 2007 Schedule C audit. My tax attorney was on vacation when IRS called to settle my case in 2009. Since the settlement deadline was missed, I dropped the attorney and had to take it to US Small Tax Court pro sese:

It was a really interested learning experience that resulted in a 16-page opinion that ended-up costing me about $24,000 after all the penalties and interest that accrued since 2004! The judge wrote: "Petitioners have neither complied with the [mileage] substantiation requirements nor maintained all required records. See sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B). Accordingly, the burden of proof remains on them."

There was one thing I did to legally increase my GVWR to 6,000+ pounds that might help someone else in a similar situation:

"The parties agree that the minivan’s gross vehicle weight without any part, component, or other item is 5,953 pounds. In addition, Mr. Engle testified that they purchased the minivan with five accessories, which were all-season floor mats that weighed 18 pounds, cargo boards that weighed 10 pounds, a cargo tray that weighed 6 pounds, a third-row sunshade that weighed 8 pounds, and a cargo mat that weighed 10 pounds. He testified that the cargo tray was stored in a well, the cargo boards “go on top of that area”, and the cargo mat covered those. He testified that the combined weight of the five accessories is 52 pounds, and when they are added to the minivan’s gross vehicle weight of 5,953 pounds, the total is 6,005 pounds. According to Mr. Engle, “since this exceeds 6,000 pounds, it is not a section 280F passenger vehicle, subject to the strict [substantiation and mileage log] rules for listed property.”

To corroborate Mr. Engle’s testimony on the acquired accessories, petitioners provided photographs of the minivan’s interior that show the all-season floor mats, cargo mat, and third-row sunshade. Although there is no evidence to corroborate Mr. Engle’s testimony as to the acquisition of the cargo boards and cargo tray, the Court observed his appearance and demeanor at trial and finds his testimony to be honest, sincere, and credible.

The Court therefore finds that the minivan’s gross vehicle weight exceeds 6,000 pounds and that the minivan is excepted from the definition of passenger automobile. See sec. 280F(d)(5). Consequently, the amount of petitioners’ deduction for Schedule C depreciation and section 179 expenses is not limited by section 280F(a). See supra note 5. But the catchall provision of section 280F(d)(4)(A)(ii) (relating to any other property used as a means of transportation) nevertheless applies, and the minivan is listed property. In addition, the minivan is not a qualified non-personal-use vehicle. In short, petitioners’ deductions for Schedule C depreciation and section 179 expenses and Schedule C car and truck expenses must be substantiated in accordance with section 274(d) and the regulations thereunder."

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/englechiou.sum.WPD.pdf

I'll be thrilled if the Model X qualifies as a "Heavy SUV". I think it will because of the drive train battery pack. What is the GVWR of Model S P85/90? I hope that someone who attends the 9/29 event takes a cell phone photo of the data plate inside the front driver's door edge. That will have the GVWR on it.
 
[I'll note that the quoted parts from the court ruling refer to GVW - which is how much a vehicle weighs and is affected by accessories. But, that is distinct from GVWR - the max rating - and so the ruling may have been internally consistent with respect to the regulations it was concerned with - but the assessment that the author "increase[d his] GVWR" is factually incorrect. He only increased his GVW.]

That ruling by the court was in error. The GVWR is not "how much does it weigh", but rather "how much must it weigh less than". Adding those accessories cannot increase your GVWR, they can only come out of its allotment of passengers and cargo. In the end, it's a limit on how much your total vehicle and contents (cargo and passengers) can weigh and the vehicle will remain safe and functional. It's a measure of how strong the frame, suspension, brakes, wheels and tires are. To increase the GVWR you would have to strengthen those components and get the vehicle recertified as safe to carry the new total mass. The floor mats are, essentially, cargo wrt the GVWR whether or not they came with the car or live in it permanently.

This page will clarify: How Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) Works - HowStuffWorks
 
Last edited:
The GVWR is what the vehicle is capable of weighing, fully loaded, while still being safe to drive.

GVWR - Vehicle Weight = Cargo Capacity.

Adding crap to your vehicle merely eats into your cargo capacity.

I think a better way of putting it would be "Vehicle Weight + Cargo (including passengers) weight must be <= GVWR".

The court ruling seems to have been focused on the fact that since those accessories were installed in the car, that they are somehow then part of the vehicle itself and therefore not cargo. That's all well and good for them, but it has no impact on the GVWR, it simply shifts some of the "must be less than" weight from one category to another, but the two categories still get added in the end and compared to the GVWR so it doesn't matter which term of the equation you classify them in.

I'll note that the quoted section of the ruling only mentioned that this modified the GVW - the Gross Vehicle Weight - not the GVWR - the Gross Vehicle Weight *Rating*. That's the "Vehicle Weight" term in the equations above. That is true. Items in the car do change its GVW and if the regulation they were quoting referred only to GVW then they are all set.

But, if the IRS rules apply to GVW*R* then accessories have no impact.
 
Don't tell poor Mr Engle that... He's already lost enough money! However if a similar situation pertains to the Model X, and the Weight difference can be made up by a factory fitted tow bar would that be OK? Just curious.

Thaks, flar, for explaining GVWR!

Since I'd opted for a more informal Small Tax Court filing because my IRS "Notice of Deficiency" post-audit was less than $50K, the judge's ruling is not part of case law, only the public record. I knew that I could have "reconstructed" contemporaneous records and brought them to court, but I wasn't about to perjure myself in a federal court. Instead, I introduced some written testimony from clients about the business use of the vehicle. It didn't feel that bad to lose this case, since I'd won several previous audits that never had to go to court. :)

Let's pay careful attention to Model X and 2015/16 tax laws to see what vehicle depreciation category it will fall under. I sure hope it isn't "Passenger Auto", which take forever to depreciate! I don't need to tow anything, but if ordering the tow bar with the strengthened frame(?) will put me >= 6,000 lbs. than that's what I'll do. Then it makes sense to just buy and depreciate it, instead of a business lease, since I plan to pay-off my lease, anyway, and keep mine.