Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

Sylvain wrote:

then how do you explain SUVs?

My brother in law has one. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle. Since he drives very little
(ie. the fuel cost is less of a factor in his life), it made sense.

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

A friend of mine also owns one, but he uses it for lugging his boat around.
He drives a far more sensible vehicle other times.

[Of course, one could question the sense of a large boat in terms of fuel
costs. But then I'm sure some people could raise the same spectre for
aircraft laugh.]

- Andrew

In article ne.com,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

My brother in law has [an SUV]. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle....

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

Have you seen the President and his cabinet? It looks like an oil
company board meeting. I think it's fairly obvious why a tax break for
fuel-thirsty vehicles is on the books, while the tax credit for hybrids
is whittled away.

Andrew Gideon opined

Sylvain wrote:

then how do you explain SUVs?

My brother in law has one. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle. Since he drives very little
(ie. the fuel cost is less of a factor in his life), it made sense.

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.

It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also qualify.

To my mind, cutting a few percent off of the corporate tax would have been a
better idea, and would not have cost anymore.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Ash Wyllie wrote:
The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.

It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also qualify.

in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
make much of a difference.

This is an area where I would really like to see free market
doing its thing...

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free

It's a deduction, not a tax credit. A person would have to be pretty dumb
to think they are getting a brand new car for free.

Pete

Sylvain wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.

It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also
qualify.


in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
make much of a difference.

I find this hard to believe. Rarely can you deduct 3X what something
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

Matt

in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I
remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing
the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us ...

I find this hard to believe. Rarely can you deduct 3X what
something
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

Matt

Congress patched that for SUVs placed in service after 10/22/04, so
it's now limited to $25K. It's not an additional deduction, but
merely allows depreciation to be claimed in the year of
acquisition. People often screw themselves by electing "section
179," due to steeply graduated tax brackets. They fail to compare
potential future savings by depreciating over 5 years, verses
taking it all in one year, chewing down into the lower marginal
brackets now as low as 10%, and even limiting the effect of certain
tax credits. Add to this the effect of progressivity and similar
wasted credits of the state income tax in some of the states.

Fred F.

Matt Whiting wrote:
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)

anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

no I don't have an URL, you'll have to head for the
library,

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)

It's a rule because so many people post so many idiotic things, like
claiming that you can get an SUV for free, or that you can turn a profit
taking advantage of the tax benefit (both statements are simply wrong).

anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

you'll notice that I did provide the reference as requested;
what more do you want?

--Sylvain