This is a fun article. The hypocrisy of these large trucks and SUVs qualifying for a tax deduction and then they are the exact ones that tear up the roads more. To me, that tax break makes no sense.
When you have SOoooo many rules and regulations, it is practically inevitable that the original intent will eventually get lost in the zealousness of tree-hugging, holier-than-thou, politicos and enforcement officials. Particulary when then can attach a fine to the 'violation'.
2004 | 6MTs | Diamond Graphite/Graphite
Upstate NY
This is hardly a loophole. The line between SUVs and heavy trucks has been blurring over the past few years. It's about time SUV owners started taking responsibility for the behemoths they're buying.
dholly, did you read the footnote at the bottom of the article? The original intent was to keep heavy vehicles off the road, and SUVs are heavy vehicles.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
Stru - I don't see any "footnote(s)", per se, to the article? But I am not challenging that the law's original intent was to keep heavy vehicles off the road, or that SUVs are heavy vehicles or that it is a 'good/bad' law. I agree many inconsiderate (or ignorant) SUV owners ignore (purposefully or otherwise) posted roadway weight restrictions, and that invariably there is a cost to pay by all.
Not so much in the N.E. perhaps, where higher weight limits are a natural byproduct of the construction techniques necessary to withstand the annual freeze/thaw cycles. But I do wonder what percentage of nationwide roadway damage by overweight vehicles is caused by SUVs vs. commercial vehicles such as UPS delivery and loaded dump trucks, 18-wheelers, schoolbuses, etc. I am going to venture a guess that the latter cause FAR, FAR more damage than SUVs annually.
So it seems like just another convenient opportunity to rail against all SUV owners. To those who would condemn any group in it's entirety simply because of a few bad apples within, well, that just seems closed-minded and discriminatory to me. Likewise, assuming they truly meet the IRS requirements, to criticize someone for utilizing a perfectly legal and allowable bunisess deduction is laughable - whether you agree with it or not. There is quite likely someone somewhere with no desire or need to own a home who believes you shouldn't have the ability to claim a primary home mortgage interest deduction because it's a waste of precious resources to build a house in excess of one bedroom or 900 square feet.
Just to clarify though, the point of my comment was all to do with the ridiculous amount of rules and regulations Federal, State and Local government agencys feel compelled to pass in their misguided attempts to 'protect' the populace. Because there are so damn many laws they often clash, even contradict, between legislative levels, it becomes virtually impossible to enforce the original intent of the original legislation, wherever it originated.
This loophole is a perfect example. The original intent of the suv tax deduction provision was to increase capital investments by farmers and other small business owners who rely on light-trucks or vans (ie. construction companies). When this provision was added to the tax code, luxury passenger SUVs were not the market force they have become, and it appeared a good way to help small business owners by accelerating depreciation and avoiding a luxury-tax surcharge. BTW, the Section 179 deduction requirements are stringent and, should you sell your vehicle, you must recapture all your depreciation deduction. I wish I qualified!
2004 | 6MTs | Diamond Graphite/Graphite
Upstate NY
This is hardly a loophole. The line between SUVs and heavy trucks has been blurring over the past few years. It's about time SUV owners started taking responsibility for the behemoths they're buying.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Stru - I don't see any "footnote(s)", per se, to the article?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It was that little section at the bottom where he talks about curb weight v. gross weight and how people choose the definition that helps them most.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am going to venture a guess that the latter cause FAR, FAR more damage than SUVs annually.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't know which way that goes. On the one hand, there are lot more SUVs on local roads, but they aren't as big as semis and delivery trucks. I could see it either way.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So it seems like just another convenient opportunity to rail against all SUV owners. To those who would condemn any group in it's entirety simply because of a few bad apples within, well, that just seems closed-minded and discriminatory to me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't think so. I'm railing against giant SUV owners because they drive giant SUVs, so they are by definition all guilty. For example, I can condemn the group "child abusers" because they are all "bad apples" under the criteria I set up for evaluation.
Of course, driving an SUV isn't that bad, but you get my point.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When this provision was added to the tax code, luxury passenger SUVs were not the market force they have become<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not so. This was part of Bush's tax cut last year. SUVs were very popular then.
And of course one could take the stance than an administration so close to the oil companies would use such an incentive to encourage people to buy vehicles that use lots of gas. Hypothetically []
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't think so. I'm railing against giant SUV owners because they drive giant SUVs, so they are by definition all guilty. For example, I can condemn the group "child abusers" because they are all "bad apples" under the criteria I set up for evaluation. Of course, driving an SUV isn't that bad, but you get my point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">IMO, that's apples and oranges my friend. Child abuse is against the law, owning and driving a SUV is not (unless, of course, you violate roadway weight limits). Until then, lumping people into a group and judging by YOUR own criteria, rather than society's legally established criteria some would argue, IS discriminatory plain and simple. SUV owners today, anybody south of the Mason-Dixon Line driving DP G35 sedans tomorrow? Of course, driving an DP G35 sedan isn't that bad, but you get my point.
The business equipment deduction did not start in 2003, it started in 1984. Since that time I have utilized the deduction numerous times. What happened in 2003 was an increase in deduction limits to an existing self-employed business expense provision. From Hot Foot's Loophole Info link: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Its roots can be traced to 1984, when the Internal Revenue Service classed three-ton trucks and larger as deductible business equipment. Of course, this was back when such vehicles were, in fact, workday necessities for farmers and contractors.
In 1997, well into the SUV era, the class of "business owner" entitled to take such deductions was broadened to include pretty much anyone claiming some self-employment income. The maximum deductible amounts, however, were much lower -- $18,000 in 1997, rising to $25,000 in 2003.
That's what changed last May. The deduction limit was raised to $100,000 as a way to stimulate business-equipment sales; despite an outcry from environmental and taxpayer groups, efforts to exclude SUVs went nowhere. And so the biggest SUVs acquired yet another undeserved advantage over other vehicles -- including those that are actually used for business purposes. A self-employed consultant or small-business owner who buys a sedan or minivan or under-three-ton truck this year can write off only a little over $10,000, and has to spread the deduction over five years.
Senate committees made efforts to correct this absurdity, without avail. House Republicans refused to accept corrective language in their horrible energy bill, pledging to deal with the matter separately. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's very clear that the real problem exists because the tax code defines industrial vehicles by weight instead of function. The parameter that the vehicle must be over 6,000 pounds fit the original intent of the legislation to help small family farmers, business needing small trucks, etc. - and still does. Obviously, while there are a handful of SUV owners who qualify and claim the deduction for their SUV, any implication that the vast majority of large SUV owners are getting 'free' vehicles because of the increased limits is crazy. SUVs still have to qualify for the business use deduction...the exact same qualifications any other vehicle placed into service by businesses must meet. And, you can be certain that the IRS is taking a *very* hard look for abuse at anyone who has claimed the deduction. No doubt in my mind, claim that deduction and you WILL get audited.
In a twisted bit of irony, however, leaving it as is may actually be BETTER. If a small business owner can buy and use a SUV rather than a larger, heavier commercial truck for business, because he can use also it 49% for personal use as well, it may totally eliminate the need for another household vehicle. That conserves resources necessary to build and maintain another vehicle, surely a good thing! Speaking from the perspective of a small business owner with limited capital, I still don't think it is as big an incentive for me to rush out and buy a $45k SUV than it is to buy $100k of other business capital equipment my company may need to expand and grow.
Yes, like many tax 'loopholes', it may be considered hypocrisy and rub us wrong. Maybe it should be plugged with a change of definition in the tax code. But, IMO, much more important and long-term benefits would come from a change in the CAFE classifications. That would force heavy SUV fuel efficiency standards that are currently non-existant. Regardless, I firmly believe that the limit increase has done MUCH more good for everyone thru it's overall stimulative effect, than harm because of the SUV loophole. And yes, that WAS the original intent of the law although, once again, some of which seems to have gotten lost in the subsequent changes courtesy of our gov't politicos. So what else is new, right??
2004 | 6MTs | Diamond Graphite/Graphite
Upstate NY
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dholly
Until then, lumping people into a group and judging by YOUR own criteria, rather than society's legally established criteria some would argue, IS discriminatory plain and simple.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It sure is [] I don't like SUVs, so you're right, I am probably being discriminatory.
But realistically, I don't advocate punishing SUV drivers who aren't breaking the law. Enforcing the weight limit or removing the tax break isn't a punishment, it's just fairness. As the article stated, SUV should be classed as cars (with emissions restrictions) or trucks (with weight restrictions). It's unfair to those classes that they get to be in some magical limbo class with no regulation. That's the group that all SUV owners belong to; in that sense they are all "bad apples" (I don't think they're actually bad because it's not their fault).
I hope that clarifies my point a little.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
Hehe, I guess that Yukon (XL!) in the driveway makes me a (really!) bad apple!
Man, I feel like I should go kick the dogs or slap my byatch around now.
See did forget to pick up my beer.
lol! []
2004 | 6MTs | Diamond Graphite/Graphite
Upstate NY
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
California's SUV Ban
]
]
