Re: Section 179 Tax Deduction

wrote:


Cliff, I don't think that SUV loophole exists anymore. At least not for the full deduction.
http://www.taxguru.org/incometax/Rates/Sec179.htm
"As of October 22, 2004, the maximum amount that can be claimed for SUVs weighing between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds is $25,000. The remaining $77,000 can be used for other kinds of business equipment, including vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds."
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edit/tips/Stories/sec179_deduction.asp
"However, when it comes to vehicles purchased utilizing the Section 179 break, legislators took back some of the benefit as it related to large sport utility vehicles. When the limit was originally increased, business owners were allowed to select for company use one of several light-truck models (which included many luxury SUVs) weighing more than 6,000 pounds fully loaded and write off most, if not all, of the costs on their tax returns. That changed on Oct. 22, when the American Jobs Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or more are eligible for the larger deduction amount."
I would advise everyone out there to utilize a tax professional when trying to understand these types of complicated tax issues. At the very least, if you are going to use a web site for advice, make sure you can corroborate the info they provide in a second reliable site. This stuff is too important to your business to not let professionals handle it.
--
Robert Davidson
President
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:44:43 -0600, Robert Davidson

<snip>
So that'd be a Humvee then?
Mark Rand (in the UK) RTFM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

for

SUVs

_deduction.asp
179

large

than

Please see my link/stats for a Humvee in my reply to Cliff. I think this revision to section 179 is to specifically exclude all SUVs. It re-defines a heavy work vehicle to more accurately account for the purchase of a true 'heavy work' vehicle, not an SUV. Even the fattest Hummer is prob . no more than 1/2 the GVW of this kind of auto.
--
Robert Davidson
President
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cliff wrote:

Cliff:
    "Fully loaded"? I think you've misunderstood what is meant by GCWR.
    GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), means the total weight of the vehicle itself, AND any towed trailer.
-- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cliff wrote:

Cliff:
    Hmmmm, it's interesting that you call intentional misrepresentation "honest fun" when YOU do it, but call others liars, idiots, wingers, and what not when THEY do the very same thing. LMAO!
-- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cliff wrote:

Cliff:
    "Fully loaded" is a commonly used term meaning all options available on the vehicle, it DOESN'T mean the combined weight of the vehicle and the heaviest trailer a vehicle can possibly tow.
    Your term "Fully loaded" wasn't even located anywhere on the Hummer site you gave. So where did it come from other than from your imagination? Go look for yourself if you doubt me.
http://www.humvee.net/alpha /
         Let me try to give a graphic example of how bogus your particular interpretation of "Fully loaded" is. Say someone has a 3,000 lb. Porsche Boxster then hooks up a loaded 11,000 lb. trailer to it. Do you think it would THEN meet the "vehicles weighing 14,000 or more" requirement to get the maximum tax write-off? You DO see how this sounds, don't you? I fail to see why you are spending any time at all trying to support such a ridiculous point. Is this more of what you're calling "honest fun"? LOL
-- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/humvees.htm
Length: 15 feet (4.57 meters) Width: 7.08 feet (2.16 meters) Weight: 5,200 pounds (2359 kilograms) Height: 6.00 feet (1.83 meters) reducible to 4.5 feet (1.37 meters) Engine: V8, 6.2L displacement, fuel injected diesel, liquid cooled, compression ignition, sorry fellas, no turbo (I'd slap on a Banks) Horsepower: 150 at 3,600 RPM Transmission: 3 speed, automatic Transfer case: 2 speed, locking, chain driven Electrical system: 24 volt, negative ground, 60 amps Brakes: Hydraulic, 4-wheeled disc Fording depth: without preparation: 2.5 feet (76.2 centimeters) with deep water fording kit: 5 feet (1.5 meters) with really deep fording kit and SCUBA tanks: 15 feet (4.5 meters) Fuel type: Diesel Fuel capacity: 25 gallons (94.63 liters) Range: 350 miles (563.15 kilometers) highway Unit Replacement Cost: $50,000
Not a commercial model, but I doubt the H2 is 9,000 lbs. heavier than the military version. In other words, no way to take the current section 179 deduction in full. The first $25K is OK, though.
The pay-back would be a function of the differnce in purchase price, annual fuel cost, maintenance cost, insurance cost and tax benefits/specific vehicle benefits. As always, no way to say in a general way...must take it case-by-case.
As far as getting bad advice from your tax pro, that's part of life. You must be a judge of charater and competence when hiring someone. A basic level of knowledge is essential, in order to make such a judgement (so research the web/read a book/take a class). If the tax guy does a poor job, get rid of him and live and learn. I doubt that you could argue a good tax guy is not worth his price (and then some). By deffinition, a bad tax guy is bad. No sense in generalizing the whole group as doing this or that.
--
Robert Davidson
President
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.