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

Peter Duniho wrote:

"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".

Especially when you are wrong. :-)

Matt

Sylvain wrote:

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,

OK, I did some research and found that your assertions are quite wrong
as I expected. As a reminder, here is what you wrote:

"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 see at least three errors in your post.

1. The deduction is now $25,000 maximum. It was $100K maximum, but that
was changed last year.

2. You couldn't deduct $100K unless the vehicle cost $100K or more, and
few SUVs cost that much. You made it sound like you could buy a Tahoe
and get a $100K tax deduction.

3. It wasn't a $100K deduction EVERY year it was a one-time deduction
the year you bought the vehicle.

Still a good deal, but not nearly the deal you made it sound.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
I see at least three errors in your post.

I see three errors in your understanding of my post
(you might want to read it more carefully)...

(I didn't say the IRS was going to hand you a 100k
every year for buying a SUV, heck, if that was
true, I'd be rushing to the local dealership :-))

but I do stand corrected on the 100k limit having been
reduced to 25k last year.

--Sylvain