Loophole In Tax Code Means Big Tax Breaks For SUV Buyers
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 91
From: NY
Loophole In Tax Code Means Big Tax Breaks For SUV Buyers
http://www.komotv.com/stories/22303.htm
Loophole In Tax Code Means Big Tax Breaks For SUV Buyers
NEW YORK - You see SUV's on the road everywhere these days, but sport utility vehicles are some of the least efficient and most expensive vehicles out there-- unless you get an unusual tax break that will save you plenty.
Karl Wizinsky just bought a giant Ford Excursion, even though he says he doesn't really need it.
"You certainly get a good view of the road," he says.
But he admits that he bought it because of the big break he can get on his tax return.
"I was surprised that a $32,000 credit on a $47,000 purchase was available in the first year -- I mean, it's a substantial credit," he said.
He was able to write off the majority of this huge SUV because of what critics call an even bigger loophole in the tax code. Tax accountant James Jenkins steers many of his clients to the car lot.
"This morning, I had a client in who had no intention of buying a vehicle prior to the end of the year, and he left here heading to the car dealership," Jenkins said.
At a time when the nation's priorities are to improve gas mileage and reduce dependence on foreign oil, the government has instead provided an incentive for just the opposite -- the biggest, least efficient SUVS available.
Here's how:
The incentives were designed to give tax breaks to small business owners buying trucks for construction or farming. But the tax code was amended before the very largest class of SUVs -- those over 6,000 pounds, existed. The SUV's carry the classification "light truck" even though they are used almost exclusively as passenger vehicles.
As a result, people whose business involves hauling nothing more than themselves reap huge benefits buying Land Rovers, Cadillacs -- even Hummers.
A new Land Rover, for example, with a sticker price of nearly $72,000 will cost only $50,000 after the tax break -- a savings of more than $21,000.
"I don't think the intent of the law was large luxurious SUV's," Jenkins said. "But that's been exactly what's happened."
Critics estimate the loophole is costing the government more than $800 million a year, while putting more and more people into SUV's they otherwise never would have bought.
NEW YORK - You see SUV's on the road everywhere these days, but sport utility vehicles are some of the least efficient and most expensive vehicles out there-- unless you get an unusual tax break that will save you plenty.
Karl Wizinsky just bought a giant Ford Excursion, even though he says he doesn't really need it.
"You certainly get a good view of the road," he says.
But he admits that he bought it because of the big break he can get on his tax return.
"I was surprised that a $32,000 credit on a $47,000 purchase was available in the first year -- I mean, it's a substantial credit," he said.
He was able to write off the majority of this huge SUV because of what critics call an even bigger loophole in the tax code. Tax accountant James Jenkins steers many of his clients to the car lot.
"This morning, I had a client in who had no intention of buying a vehicle prior to the end of the year, and he left here heading to the car dealership," Jenkins said.
At a time when the nation's priorities are to improve gas mileage and reduce dependence on foreign oil, the government has instead provided an incentive for just the opposite -- the biggest, least efficient SUVS available.
Here's how:
The incentives were designed to give tax breaks to small business owners buying trucks for construction or farming. But the tax code was amended before the very largest class of SUVs -- those over 6,000 pounds, existed. The SUV's carry the classification "light truck" even though they are used almost exclusively as passenger vehicles.
As a result, people whose business involves hauling nothing more than themselves reap huge benefits buying Land Rovers, Cadillacs -- even Hummers.
A new Land Rover, for example, with a sticker price of nearly $72,000 will cost only $50,000 after the tax break -- a savings of more than $21,000.
"I don't think the intent of the law was large luxurious SUV's," Jenkins said. "But that's been exactly what's happened."
Critics estimate the loophole is costing the government more than $800 million a year, while putting more and more people into SUV's they otherwise never would have bought.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 41
From: Bass Harbor, Maine
Car Info: Impreza OBSTI Ver. V
cripes!
when will this total madness end!
not only are these SUVs terrible for the annoying reasons:
-their higher off the ground headlights blare into regular sized vehicles(you know ..... cars )
-their hieght makes it difficult for drivers of cars behind them to see traffic lights, cars stopping quickly ahead, anything
but they are dangerous, unenviormentaly sound, gass gussling, overpriced behemouths that when they crash into regular cars they are too high and the car's cruple zones sometimes don't even work as their supposed to. the result we get killed SUVs survive. AND SUVs are actually LESS safe than regular cars because of their high centers of gravity. the high C.O.G. means the SUVs are much more likely to be involved in a rollover usually leading to death or paralysis.
i'm sorry, didn't mean to rant i just hate SUVs.
how's this for a scary thought: now that the first SUVs made are starting to get old they are begining to be cheap enough for teenage first time drivers to drive. these first time drivers are probably led to beileve that SUVs are "safe" since they are, when crashed into other cars, but these kids will be even more prone to rolling over than the baby boomer types that first bought them. just what we need kids in SUVs rolling over and killing themselve or spending the rest of their lives paralised. or worse, crashing into other cars as they learn to drive killing we who drive regular cars. the roads are gonna be a friggen blood bath.
i'm sorry i'm ranting again, these things should be banned.
-Lou
not only are these SUVs terrible for the annoying reasons:
-their higher off the ground headlights blare into regular sized vehicles(you know ..... cars )
-their hieght makes it difficult for drivers of cars behind them to see traffic lights, cars stopping quickly ahead, anything
but they are dangerous, unenviormentaly sound, gass gussling, overpriced behemouths that when they crash into regular cars they are too high and the car's cruple zones sometimes don't even work as their supposed to. the result we get killed SUVs survive. AND SUVs are actually LESS safe than regular cars because of their high centers of gravity. the high C.O.G. means the SUVs are much more likely to be involved in a rollover usually leading to death or paralysis.
i'm sorry, didn't mean to rant i just hate SUVs.
how's this for a scary thought: now that the first SUVs made are starting to get old they are begining to be cheap enough for teenage first time drivers to drive. these first time drivers are probably led to beileve that SUVs are "safe" since they are, when crashed into other cars, but these kids will be even more prone to rolling over than the baby boomer types that first bought them. just what we need kids in SUVs rolling over and killing themselve or spending the rest of their lives paralised. or worse, crashing into other cars as they learn to drive killing we who drive regular cars. the roads are gonna be a friggen blood bath.
i'm sorry i'm ranting again, these things should be banned.
-Lou
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 41
From: Bass Harbor, Maine
Car Info: Impreza OBSTI Ver. V
why because they use more gasoline? that IS ridiculous.... 
true the less we are dependant on oil the better, but most of our oil comes from Alaska, mexico and other S. american nations. a very small percentage of our oil actually come from the middle east. why are we so hyped aboiut the region you say? its because our allies(most of europe) depend heavily on mid east oil. the problems from SUVs are more saftey and enviormentally related. they ARE unsafe for both the drivers of SUVs and for everyone else on the road in non SUVs. they ARE unsound for the enviorment with their different emmisions standards, and heavy use of fossil fuels, BUT supports terrorism??!?!
instead that organization sould have used that money and ad time to actually inform consummers of the FACTS about SUVs. i truely beleive if ppl are informed of the dangers of these things they will buy other alternatives. scare tatics like that one seem to undermine the legitimacy of the organization its representing. its like the PETA folks. maybe they're right and animals should be respected more than they are, but when i see their tatics i just cant help thinking: "jeez those animal freaks sure are crazy".
there is a good book on the issue of SUVs called "High and Mighty" by a new york tiomes auto correspondant that is some good reading. not only for the SUV stuff but because it gives an in depth analysis of the US auto indrustry, VERY interesting stuff indeed, and although the book is obviously slanted against SUVs it doesn't slam the US auto makers, just tells of how SUVs came about through them. go to the library and rent iot for reading its good for anyone who is into cars and the auto indrustry.
right on guys,
-Lou
edit: minor grammar stuff
true the less we are dependant on oil the better, but most of our oil comes from Alaska, mexico and other S. american nations. a very small percentage of our oil actually come from the middle east. why are we so hyped aboiut the region you say? its because our allies(most of europe) depend heavily on mid east oil. the problems from SUVs are more saftey and enviormentally related. they ARE unsafe for both the drivers of SUVs and for everyone else on the road in non SUVs. they ARE unsound for the enviorment with their different emmisions standards, and heavy use of fossil fuels, BUT supports terrorism??!?!
instead that organization sould have used that money and ad time to actually inform consummers of the FACTS about SUVs. i truely beleive if ppl are informed of the dangers of these things they will buy other alternatives. scare tatics like that one seem to undermine the legitimacy of the organization its representing. its like the PETA folks. maybe they're right and animals should be respected more than they are, but when i see their tatics i just cant help thinking: "jeez those animal freaks sure are crazy".
there is a good book on the issue of SUVs called "High and Mighty" by a new york tiomes auto correspondant that is some good reading. not only for the SUV stuff but because it gives an in depth analysis of the US auto indrustry, VERY interesting stuff indeed, and although the book is obviously slanted against SUVs it doesn't slam the US auto makers, just tells of how SUVs came about through them. go to the library and rent iot for reading its good for anyone who is into cars and the auto indrustry.
right on guys,
-Lou
edit: minor grammar stuff
Guest
Posts: n/a
do you have any more info on that tax break? think of this,,, if it is for a truck i could get a lighting and do double duty. hot rod for me and tow truck for the horses. or how's this,, when the pt cruiser first came out it was classified as a truck. the possiblities continue to grow, but i need more info to sic the accountant on it. thanks, rob
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 145
From: Perrin Race DP Perrin Up-pipe Blitz Nur-spec CB Blitz LM intake TXS UTEC GFB BOV
I know it's cruel but I have to laugh everytime I read about someone dying in an SUV rollover. I look at it as pay back for all the innocent people in average size cars that have died at the hands of some frigging soccer mom driving a 6,000lb suburban.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: cripes!
Originally posted by 22 Lou
when will this total madness end!
not only are these SUVs terrible for the annoying reasons:
-their higher off the ground headlights blare into regular sized vehicles(you know ..... cars )
-their hieght makes it difficult for drivers of cars behind them to see traffic lights, cars stopping quickly ahead, anything
but they are dangerous, unenviormentaly sound, gass gussling, overpriced behemouths that when they crash into regular cars they are too high and the car's cruple zones sometimes don't even work as their supposed to. the result we get killed SUVs survive. AND SUVs are actually LESS safe than regular cars because of their high centers of gravity. the high C.O.G. means the SUVs are much more likely to be involved in a rollover usually leading to death or paralysis.
i'm sorry, didn't mean to rant i just hate SUVs.
how's this for a scary thought: now that the first SUVs made are starting to get old they are begining to be cheap enough for teenage first time drivers to drive. these first time drivers are probably led to beileve that SUVs are "safe" since they are, when crashed into other cars, but these kids will be even more prone to rolling over than the baby boomer types that first bought them. just what we need kids in SUVs rolling over and killing themselve or spending the rest of their lives paralised. or worse, crashing into other cars as they learn to drive killing we who drive regular cars. the roads are gonna be a friggen blood bath.
i'm sorry i'm ranting again, these things should be banned.
-Lou
when will this total madness end!
not only are these SUVs terrible for the annoying reasons:
-their higher off the ground headlights blare into regular sized vehicles(you know ..... cars )
-their hieght makes it difficult for drivers of cars behind them to see traffic lights, cars stopping quickly ahead, anything
but they are dangerous, unenviormentaly sound, gass gussling, overpriced behemouths that when they crash into regular cars they are too high and the car's cruple zones sometimes don't even work as their supposed to. the result we get killed SUVs survive. AND SUVs are actually LESS safe than regular cars because of their high centers of gravity. the high C.O.G. means the SUVs are much more likely to be involved in a rollover usually leading to death or paralysis.
i'm sorry, didn't mean to rant i just hate SUVs.
how's this for a scary thought: now that the first SUVs made are starting to get old they are begining to be cheap enough for teenage first time drivers to drive. these first time drivers are probably led to beileve that SUVs are "safe" since they are, when crashed into other cars, but these kids will be even more prone to rolling over than the baby boomer types that first bought them. just what we need kids in SUVs rolling over and killing themselve or spending the rest of their lives paralised. or worse, crashing into other cars as they learn to drive killing we who drive regular cars. the roads are gonna be a friggen blood bath.
i'm sorry i'm ranting again, these things should be banned.
-Lou
I am scared to think of what will happen when too many kids buy these weapons of destruction and death. I saw someone the other day fly down a steep hill (narrow street) at WOT in some gigantic SUV. It just sent chills up my spine.
Not long ago a guy a know bought a used Ford Expedition. He's 26, single, and has no need to haul anything. First thing he did was get some light up windshield washer nozzels, and some bling bling crome rims. He bought it just because it is the style, but he has always been one to be a slave to what is in style - never practical. He's an idiot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: cripes!
Originally posted by Rev
You said it brother!
I am scared to think of what will happen when too many kids buy these weapons of destruction and death. I saw someone the other day fly down a steep hill (narrow street) at WOT in some gigantic SUV. It just sent chills up my spine.
.
You said it brother!
I am scared to think of what will happen when too many kids buy these weapons of destruction and death. I saw someone the other day fly down a steep hill (narrow street) at WOT in some gigantic SUV. It just sent chills up my spine.
.
It sends chills up my spine when its downhill and i'm in front of the a-hole in the suv. Some jackass in an ford excursion, the biggest damn beast on earth, came flying up behind me while we were going downhill. i dont know what he was trying to prove but he almost nailed me, you know you can tell hes close when all you can see in your rearview is a blue oval. i think my heart skipped a beat, he would have gone right over my car in that thing. I hate SUVs.. I want them taxed out of existense
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,402
From: Bay Area
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Re: Re: cripes!
Originally posted by Rev
You said it brother!
I am scared to think of what will happen when too many kids buy these weapons of destruction and death. I saw someone the other day fly down a steep hill (narrow street) at WOT in some gigantic SUV. It just sent chills up my spine.
You said it brother!
I am scared to think of what will happen when too many kids buy these weapons of destruction and death. I saw someone the other day fly down a steep hill (narrow street) at WOT in some gigantic SUV. It just sent chills up my spine.
I have no issue with people who buy SUV's to tow their boat or trailer. But people need to realize they are driving a 3+ ton vehicle with a high center of gravity. Pretty basic - they take longer to stop and you can't corner as fast in them. The biggest safety problem with SUV's is this countries attitude that it is a 16 year old's right, not privilege, to drive. Just last weekend I saw an Excursion tail gating a Corvette on hwy 17, which is a winding mountain pass...oh yeah, the vette was already going ~10-15 over the posted limit.
Last edited by BlingBlingBlue; Jan 27, 2003 at 11:47 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,402
From: Bay Area
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Originally posted by Kevex
oh my god....shouldnt this be the other way around? the burn gas like drinking water, total other car easily....etc...they should charge more tax on those people...god what the hell is going on
oh my god....shouldnt this be the other way around? the burn gas like drinking water, total other car easily....etc...they should charge more tax on those people...god what the hell is going on
Did you know before the whole Firestone thing that Ford Explorers did not post their maximum load? All they showed on the inside door jam was maximum gross vehicle weight. An owner would have to weigh his truck empty to figure out that the load of occupants and gear was about equal to that of a Taurus. How do expect people to weigh their trucks when you can't even trust them to check the air pressure in their tires?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 41
From: Bass Harbor, Maine
Car Info: Impreza OBSTI Ver. V
yeah BBlue
yes i did read about that(not having the weight listed on the suv) in that book: high and mighty.
apparently if you read the owner's manual it said to take it to a truck weighing station to determine the weight of the suv and then take the max weight and the difference is what it can hold. A TRUCK WEIGHING station! what was ford thinking. that has got to be the stupidist thing i ever heard....the author of the book actually went to a truch weighing station and they told him he wasn't allowed to weigh it there. he eventually took it to a scale at a garbage dump(where they weigh dumptrucks) and as the scale operator cracked up at this guy in a suv weighing his car, gave the author his weight. when the author did the nessesary math he found the suv was NOT supposed to carry the full amout of passengers that the suv would allow, worse if the back was used to carry luggage as well...unfriggenbelieveable! a fully loaded suv is basically death on wheels waiting to happen.
BTW: i totally agree with BBBue, i think that they perform a service for ppl with boats, their own business, etc, but the majority of suv buyers are located in the big urban centers, especially New York City! that is just plain dumb if you ask me, but they are a "status" symbol so they get bought instead of lincon continentals and caddilac sts, the new luxo "car" is the lincon navigator and the caddilac escalade.... just plain dumb if you ask me
just MHO,
-Lou
apparently if you read the owner's manual it said to take it to a truck weighing station to determine the weight of the suv and then take the max weight and the difference is what it can hold. A TRUCK WEIGHING station! what was ford thinking. that has got to be the stupidist thing i ever heard....the author of the book actually went to a truch weighing station and they told him he wasn't allowed to weigh it there. he eventually took it to a scale at a garbage dump(where they weigh dumptrucks) and as the scale operator cracked up at this guy in a suv weighing his car, gave the author his weight. when the author did the nessesary math he found the suv was NOT supposed to carry the full amout of passengers that the suv would allow, worse if the back was used to carry luggage as well...unfriggenbelieveable! a fully loaded suv is basically death on wheels waiting to happen.
BTW: i totally agree with BBBue, i think that they perform a service for ppl with boats, their own business, etc, but the majority of suv buyers are located in the big urban centers, especially New York City! that is just plain dumb if you ask me, but they are a "status" symbol so they get bought instead of lincon continentals and caddilac sts, the new luxo "car" is the lincon navigator and the caddilac escalade.... just plain dumb if you ask me
just MHO,
-Lou
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
I<3subie
Bay Area
14
Oct 30, 2008 01:48 PM
stupidchicken03
Sacramento & Reno
97
Aug 24, 2008 11:53 PM
Salty
Teh Politics Forum
57
Oct 22, 2004 02:41 PM
