No tax credit for customers with binding contracts.

[Dark-Fx]

This argument is undermined by the remaining $900 still being refundable. I'm not sure how I would address that.

My reading of the contract is strictly that the $900 in deposit is refundable but they could still obligate you to purchase the vehicle as there's nothing in there that requesting the refund actually breaks the contract. I'm not a lawyer though.

I highly doubt Rivian would do that, but from a legal standpoint they absolutely still would have the power to.

Sponsored

 

[astonius]

All this arguing about what constitutes a valid BPA when it's likely moot anyhow. I know some want to argue 2023 guidance hasn't been published, but it has, and there's zero mention of BPA with a fat chance of that changing.

 

[Dark-Fx]

All this arguing about what constitutes a valid BPA when it's likely moot anyhow. I know some want to argue 2023 guidance hasn't been published, but it has, and there's zero mention of BPA with a fat chance of that changing.

Has not. The wording of the law allows you to qualify under the old section 30D because of the transition rule, which has no time limit. This document is strictly about qualifying under the new section 30D.

 

[astonius]

Has not. The wording of the law allows you to qualify under the old section 30D because of the transition rule, which has no time limit. This document is strictly about qualifying under the new section 30D.

Why ignore this line?

 

[BullWink181]

All this arguing about what constitutes a valid BPA when it's likely moot anyhow. I know some want to argue 2023 guidance hasn't been published, but it has, and there's zero mention of BPA with a fat chance of that changing.

The guidance is just that. Guidance. It's meant to aid taxpayers in interpreting the tax code. Guidance is not infallible and is not binding authority. Only the statute and official rules actually have authority. If the IRS says in its guidance that BPAs are no longer valid starting in 2023, they MUST be able to point to relevant authority (statute or rule in the CFR) to support it. The language of the guidance, on its own, is not sufficient.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Why ignore this line?

Why ignore that document is talking about the 2022 tax year? I have no friggen idea, it's not like I've already explained that a dozen times.

 

[astonius]

Why ignore that document is talking about the 2022 tax year? I have no friggen idea, it's not like I've already explained that a dozen times.

It's talking about vehicles purchased in 2022. If your argument rests on the BPA meaning you purchased the vehicle in 2022, then this is the guidance which applies, and it explicitly limits the applicability of the BPA. Otherwise you purchased the vehicle in 2023 or later, which the new requirements would affect.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Otherwise you purchased the vehicle in 2023 or later, which the new requirements would affect.

The actual word of law in the bill that details the transition rule does not put a time limit on it. Based entirely on the law of the document, the IRS has a hole to fill for purchases and deliveries in 2023 for anyone that has a BPA. If they don't issue new guidance for the transition rule for the 2023 tax year, they have not actually addressed the law. The old section 30D is still applicable for anyone who meets the transition rule law unless they say otherwise.

 

[astonius]

I think the guidance and statute are using certain terms interchangeably and mixing them up, or folks on here are. Section 30D uses terms like "purchase" "delivery" "possession" and "put in service." You HAVE to apply those terms each as having distinct meanings. Because while taking possession or getting delivery may mean the true factual date that the vehicle arrived in your driveway, the statute might establish other, more specific legal definitions. I don't have the energy to delve into it and connect all the dots, but it is ESSENTIAL that you don't assume similar words mean the same thing.

The page for 2022 purchases explicitly states "took possession" when discussing BPA applicability and limits that window to before Jan 1, 2023.

 

[Dark-Fx]

The page for 2022 purchases explicitly states "took possession" when discussing BPA applicability and limits that window to before Jan 1, 2023.

You're overlooking that the IRA immediately required North American final assembly when it was enacted to qualify for the tax credit going forward (during the window you are referencing). The pretext here is just stating if you had a BPA, you are allowed to ignore that requirement for the credit.

 

[astonius]

You're overlooking that the IRA immediately required North American final assembly when it was enacted to qualify for the tax credit going forward (during the window you are referencing). The pretext here is just stating if you had a BPA, you are allowed to ignore that requirement for the credit. If you did not, your vehicle had to have North American final assembly to qualify between those two dates.

Not overlooking that at all. Those were the only ones who benefited from BPAs, and it's irrelevant to Rivian.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Not overlooking that at all. Those were the only ones who benefited from BPAs.

Again and again, this document is only about people who are going to claim their credit on the 2022 tax year and clarifying every instance for the 2022 tax year.

 

[astonius]

Again and again, this document is only about people who are going to claim their credit on the 2022 tax year and clarifying every instance for the 2022 tax year.

This document says nothing about tax year. It's about when you purchased.

 

[Dark-Fx]

This document says nothing about tax year. It's about when you purchased.

You are so daft.

 

[astonius]

You are so daft.

Alright genius, you tell me: if I signed Rivian's BPA on 8/10/22, and I take possession next month, when did I purchase the vehicle?

Sponsored