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

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

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
you'll notice that I did provide the reference as requested;
what more do you want?

You did not provide a reference. You provided the name of an Act which may
or may not actually support your position.

A true reference would quote the pertinent part of the Act that you believe
supports your statement, and provide the information about where in the Act
your quoted text could be found.

Pete

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

Sylvain wrote:

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.

I read it again when I replied to it. It said nothing about "up to
$100K" or "$100K maximum", it just said that you get $100K if you buy an
SUV. That isn't correct now and never was correct.

Matt