If the owner claimed the $7500 tax credit, he is liable to pay it back to the government. From my understanding this is called a recapture event which is triggered within 3 years of when the vehicle was placed in service if the taxpayer sells or disposes of the vehicle. Because the car was lemoned it no longer qualifies for the credit so therefore AFAIK the government can go after him if he doesn't give the credit back.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Lemon Model S owner Rebuttal to Tesla's Blog Post
- Thread starter montgom626
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
You mention if the user sells the vehicle within 3 years...is it true just selling a used Model S within 3 years of the original purchaser buying it? If this is true and a second owner can't claim that credit, then why are most second hand Model S's being priced to account for the original owners claiming of the $7500 (my observation). I wonder how many people actually know this...
If you actually read the credit text (posting from my phone or I'd link it), there isn't actually a 3-year limit. The actual text simply says that the car can't be purchased for resale, which leaves the actual timeframe up for interpretation.
My guess is the text is there simply to prevent abuse, and I'd be very surprised if the IRS used that clause against a 'normal' owner who moved on from their vehicle for reasonable reasons regardless of timeframe.
My guess is the text is there simply to prevent abuse, and I'd be very surprised if the IRS used that clause against a 'normal' owner who moved on from their vehicle for reasonable reasons regardless of timeframe.
No, there's a line in there about Recapture with a reference to a law. I did some google search on it and there was some verbage that I quoted. I'm no expert but the way that I understood it was that if owner of the vehicle resold *AND* knowingly knows that the car no longer qualifiable for the credit (which is a bit unclear), then they are are liable for recapture the money. The "no longer qualified" I believe is supposed to mean to stop people from buying and reselling and just claiming the $7500 as profit each time. I would argue that this also applies for returning a car to the manufacturer via the lemon law which you knowingly know that #1 nobody else can claim the credit and on top of that #2 it's not even a qualifiable vehicle for resale back to a consumer. the car can no longer "be placed in service". at least not cleanly (there are ways around lemon law to fix and resell back to someone without the lemon status, but thats not relevant here). The point of this credit is to reward people with money for purchasing an electric vehicle and placing it in service. They are trying to encourage people to drive electric cars. Immediately reselling or returning it back to the manufacturer IMO does not qualify you to get this credit because again they are trying to reward people to switching over to an electric car and promote/support EV adoption. this "no longer a qualifiable vehicle" is what triggers the recapture. I mean think about it, what if you buy the car, register it, then 2 weeks later claim Lemon and have the manufacturer buy the car back from you. At the end of the year when you file your taxes, do you think it's reasonable for this person to get rewarded with $7500 from the government? NO. It should be rewarded only for keeping it. Now the real question is whether or not the government is even going to bother to enforce this. I doubt it. So I bet he could get away with it.
Right out of the box first post was censored. With all the hate written in this topic some wishing harm to the op I am really surprised and don't understand what I wrote that was inappropriate. I did not bash anyone or show happiness that the op's reputation was ruined. That seems very hurtful and not respectful to someone who willingly wrote about his experience. I respectfully would like some clarification to what I wrote that was so outrageous that it needed to be censored.
GoBlue88
Member
I'm not a mod, but I would venture to guess that it was the unwarranted shot at people based on how they voted in the last 2 presidential elections. I think most people would agree that is entirely irrelevant to this topic. Furthermore as it was your very first post, the tone had "troll" written all over it.
NigelM
Recovering Member
I put your post in moderation. General potshots at people, yelling in CAPS and political jabs are what got your post removed. Feel free to disagree with people and have a discussion but do it politely and leave the politics for a different forum please.
Not a troll. Actually my mercedes s550 is coming off lease in 3 months. Not going back to them, as lease price has almost doubled. Just doing due diligence on other options in the same price range of vehicle. I am looking at this vehicle, audi A8,A7 and jaguar. I would have to order soon and did a google search and it led me to this site/topic. I just find it strange that some people were so adamant and judgmental to the guy with his problems. 100K for a car with any problems is troubling to the that person with the car. Right before my current car, I had a 2012 BMW 750li that had serious electrical issues and was taken back by the dealer. These issues included the day after delivery the car was dead in my garage, with 6 miles on it. After 2 months of aggravation I got an attorney and it wasn't until then that I got a satisfactory response from the manufacturer. I can see why people may think troll but I was/am looking for information to make an informed purchase with 100K + in my next vehicle decision.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I respect your opinion, and will act accordingly. But some people on here posted some pretty vile and arrogant views, without naming names and they weren't censored. And I did read pages and pages of offered opinions before posting. It wasn't with written without experiencing some of these writings that compelled me to post.
Thank you. Your first post here put down over half the electorate so that didn't get you off to a great start. If you would report these posts you feel are vile and arrogant we can take a look at them.
You also might not have read this entire thread. This guy has a history of making the exact same claim again a different car with the exact same lawyer two years ago. Odds of that are small. There is also decent evidence (according to Tesla at least) that the problems stopped once they put tamper proof tape across the fuse box. Very likely this entire thing was faked.
Look around and feel free to ask questions. We try and leave politics to other forums.
Last edited:
Why did Tesla settle?
I read this post
Tesla Lemon Model S owner Rebuttal to Tesla's Blog Post
Can anyone explain why Tesla settled with this guy? Why didn't Tesla stay the course and fight him in court?
TFAN
I read this post
Tesla Lemon Model S owner Rebuttal to Tesla's Blog Post
Can anyone explain why Tesla settled with this guy? Why didn't Tesla stay the course and fight him in court?
TFAN
jeff_adams
Member
They probably had more important things for thier corporate legal team to work on (like battling dealer associations). Sometimes arguing with stupid people makes everyone look dumb.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
So what happens to the arguably perfectly fine, but maligned as a lemon, car? If they can't sell it, it would be wasteful to total it, will we see it show up as a loaner? If so, would be fun to track.
How about an adopt-a-lemon contest? Whichever charity comes up with the best essay on why they need a "lemon" tesla gets it, with service agreement. I would love to see articles 6+ months from now on all the trouble-free good that car was doing
. As a shareholder, would be a nice way to feel better about the cost of that guy's dishonesty and greed.
How about an adopt-a-lemon contest? Whichever charity comes up with the best essay on why they need a "lemon" tesla gets it, with service agreement. I would love to see articles 6+ months from now on all the trouble-free good that car was doing
. As a shareholder, would be a nice way to feel better about the cost of that guy's dishonesty and greed.
Last edited:
bollar
Disgruntled Member
So what happens to the arguably perfectly fine, but maligned as a lemon, car? If they can't sell it, it would be wasteful to total it, will we see it show up as a loaner? If so, would be fun to track.
How about an adopt-a-lemon contest? Whichever charity comes up with the best essay on why they need a "lemon" tesla gets it, with service agreement. I would love to see articles 6+ months from now on all the trouble-free good that car was doing
Who knows what Tesla will do, but it's typical to move the car to another state with different lemon laws. From there, someone who wants "a deal" will take it. In Texas, we see cars all the time from WA & CA with lemon titles, and they can be a deal. I bought a one-year-old Mercedes AMG CL 55 for half its original price this way. The original problems were fully disclosed on the Texas application for title. The most significant was supposedly the smell the HVAC generated. At that point MBUSA marked it as can't fix and bought it back. The car smelled like leather to me for the eight years I owned it -- so I must not have the super olfactory senses of the original owner.
