7500 EV tax credit update with new bill

[digiboxer]

If all this is true and confirming the order to make the deposit nonrefundable does not qualify me for the tax credit, I will indeed feel misled in addition to being out an extra $7,500 thanks to Lucid's incomplete, inaccurate information that they provided in suggesting that confirming the order would (may) qualify me. Yes, I agree that their lawyers should have investigated this more thoroughly and figured out what needed to happen in order for us to qualify. What did the other EV companies do to help their reservation holders? Did they get it right?

It's pretty clear the loss of the 7,500 was totally out of Lucid's control--same for the other EV makers. Their worst sin, as I see it, was offering an iffy scheme they admitted "may" preserve the credit, when a couple hours of legal research would likely have concluded it didn't.

FWW, Fisker did the same as Lucid (I confirmed there too)...I'm told ditto for Rivian, but don't know first-hand.

 

[Halodde]

It's pretty clear the loss of the 7,500 was totally out of Lucid's control--same for the other EV makers. Their worst sin, as I see it, was offering an iffy scheme they admitted "may" preserve the credit, when a couple hours of legal research would likely have concluded it didn't.

FWW, Fisker did the same as Lucid (I confirmed there too)...I'm told ditto for Rivian, but don't know first-hand.

Agreed on all counts. I think our elected officials did all of the EV community a huge disservice with this bill. None of the EV's currently available qualify for the full credit and only 30% of them qualify for a partial credit with the new restrictions. It's BS.

However, I would have expected Lucid to do better with their DD before suggesting to us that there was even a chance of protecting the $7,500 credit by confirming our orders with the plan they came up with. That's poor planning and misleading on their part. There was seemingly no chance that confirming our orders would help us at all but they didn't look into it enough to figure that out? Or did they know it wouldn't make a difference and led us down that path anyway because they feared we wouldn't follow through on our reservations due to the current problems and delays? We don't know and won't know why they did what they did I guess.

 

[hydbob]

Agreed on all counts. I think our elected officials did all of the EV community a huge disservice with this bill. None of the EV's currently available qualify for the full credit and only 30% of them qualify for a partial credit with the new restrictions. It's BS.

However, I would have expected Lucid to do better with their DD before suggesting to us that there was even a chance of protecting the $7,500 credit by confirming our orders with the plan they came up with. That's poor planning and misleading on their part. There was seemingly no chance that confirming our orders would help us at all but they didn't look into it enough to figure that out? Or did they know it wouldn't make a difference and led us down that path anyway because they feared we wouldn't follow through on our reservations due to the current problems and delays? We don't know and won't know why they did what they did I guess.

I do not think that Lucid/Rivian/Fisker did not do enough research or DD to figure it out. It could be argued that there was enough historical evidence to suggest the amount was not high enough, but without direct guidance from the IRS before the passage of the bill, how would any of these companies know where "binding contract" with regards to purchasing EVs would fall? Each company took it's best guess at what the IRS might do and took their shot. From my viewpoint, there's no malice or incompetence when you are guessing to try and circumvent a provision in a newly passed law. It's much easier to say, "at least we tried but ultimately it's not our fault the IRS views it this way..." It seems the only companies who are immediately directly benefiting from this bill is Tesla and GM...

 

[daydreamer223]

I do not think that Lucid/Rivian/Fisker did not do enough research or DD to figure it out. It could be argued that there was enough historical evidence to suggest the amount was not high enough, but without direct guidance from the IRS before the passage of the bill, how would any of these companies know where "binding contract" with regards to purchasing EVs would fall? Each company took it's best guess at what the IRS might do and took their shot. From my viewpoint, there's no malice or incompetence when you are guessing to try and circumvent a provision in a newly passed law. It's much easier to say, "at least we tried but ultimately it's not our fault the IRS views it this way..." It seems the only companies who are immediately directly benefiting from this bill is Tesla and GM...

Completely agree with this. There was really no winning for Lucid/Rivian/Fisker in this scenario.

They could have done nothing, and everyone would complain that they didn't even try. They made a reasonable attempt, which was clearly not going to be a sure thing, but it was a gesture. I don't understand how anyone could reasonably be misled by their pretty soft language on the matter. I assume they also wanted to balance not asking for $5K (or more) deposits like Fisker.

 

[noobzilla]

If all this is true and confirming the order to make the deposit nonrefundable does not qualify me for the tax credit, I will indeed feel misled in addition to being out an extra $7,500 thanks to Lucid's incomplete, inaccurate information that they provided in suggesting that confirming the order would (may) qualify me. Yes, I agree that their lawyers should have investigated this more thoroughly and figured out what needed to happen in order for us to qualify. What did the other EV companies do to help their reservation holders? Did they get it right?

I think none did. I know Fisker and Rivian did the same thing as Lucid.

They did say there's no guarantee to receive the tax credit. It's an opportunity to possibly still qualify for it. Although you're right... the way it was advertised seemed like we're very likely to get the credit by confirming.

Everything was rushed, rightfully so because the bill went in quickly. It's a bigger risk for them to ask for several thousands of nonrefundable deposit and yet still possibly not qualify for the tax credit. They also can't just say "it tax credit doesn't work out, then we will refund" because then it becomes a refundable deposit which is more likely to make the whole thing a non binding purchase agreement. I did communicate with the VP of Sales, so he's aware of the situation and if there's absolute 100% certainty that this whole ordering situation would not yield tax credit qualification, then they can retract and make it refundable again.

It's better to have tried something with a chance of it working than doing nothing and absolutely getting 0. There's going to be much more whining and complaining if Lucid did nothing. At this point we can just wait and have the lawyers and gov't officials figure this out.

 

[HC_79]

It seems the only companies who are immediately directly benefiting from this bill is Tesla and GM...

Of course GM was going to benefit the most immediately. Biden loves Barra and thinks GM is the world leader in EV's. Tesla got lucky!

 

[Halodde]

Completely agree with this. There was really no winning for Lucid/Rivian/Fisker in this scenario.

They could have done nothing, and everyone would complain that they didn't even try. They made a reasonable attempt, which was clearly not going to be a sure thing, but it was a gesture. I don't understand how anyone could reasonably be misled by their pretty soft language on the matter. I assume they also wanted to balance not asking for $5K (or more) deposits like Fisker.

The feeling that we were misled was from the email and my conversation with CS. They told me that the wording of "may" still qualify was due to my own financial situation (income restrictions). This leads someone to reasonably assume that the company was at least portraying that their suggestion was accurate.

And I don't appreciate you suggesting that I am not reasonable for feeling misled.

 

[Impatient7536]

Completely agree with this. There was really no winning for Lucid/Rivian/Fisker in this scenario.

They could have done nothing, and everyone would complain that they didn't even try. They made a reasonable attempt, which was clearly not going to be a sure thing, but it was a gesture. I don't understand how anyone could reasonably be misled by their pretty soft language on the matter. I assume they also wanted to balance not asking for $5K (or more) deposits like Fisker.

I do not think that Lucid/Rivian/Fisker did not do enough research or DD to figure it out. It could be argued that there was enough historical evidence to suggest the amount was not high enough, but without direct guidance from the IRS before the passage of the bill, how would any of these companies know where "binding contract" with regards to purchasing EVs would fall? Each company took it's best guess at what the IRS might do and took their shot. From my viewpoint, there's no malice or incompetence when you are guessing to try and circumvent a provision in a newly passed law. It's much easier to say, "at least we tried but ultimately it's not our fault the IRS views it this way..." It seems the only companies who are immediately directly benefiting from this bill is Tesla and GM...

agreed. can you imagine what this forum wouldve been like if lucid gave us the option of confirming the deposit, but it had to be 5% of the car value while providing us the IRS language as their proof/reasoning? there's absolutely no winning for anyone in this situation.

 

[HC_79]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Lucid made it clear in the wording that is wasn't a guarantee so if people couldn't afford to lose $300 or $1000 then they shouldn't have taken the risk. I don't blame Lucid, Rivian or Fisker for this mess, they tried to find a loophole in a very short timeframe.

 

[noobzilla]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Lucid made it clear in the wording that is wasn't a guarantee so if people couldn't afford to lose $300 or $1000 then they shouldn't have taken the risk. I don't blame Lucid, Rivian or Fisker for this mess, they tried to find a loophole in a very short timeframe.

This. Given the wordings of the bills and grey areas and uncertainties with these policies, I honestly can't think of what else couldve been done better given this whole messy situation. I guess perhaps they couldve put the not-guaranteed part in font size 100, bold, italic so people didn't miss it haha For me it's already clear that confirming is not a guarantee.

 

[Impatient7536]

This. Given the wordings of the bills and grey areas and uncertainties with these policies, I honestly can't think of what else couldve been done better given this whole messy situation. I guess perhaps they couldve put the not-guaranteed part in font size 100, bold, italic so people didn't miss it haha For me it's already clear that confirming is not a guarantee.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Lucid made it clear in the wording that is wasn't a guarantee so if people couldn't afford to lose $300 or $1000 then they shouldn't have taken the risk. I don't blame Lucid, Rivian or Fisker for this mess, they tried to find a loophole in a very short timeframe.

i bet someone is gonna argue that they couldve done some basic research and found the 5% rule (which i think is a valid point), then send us the binding agreement for 5% of the car cost, instead of just the $300/$1000 deposit. i personally think that wouldve caused a whole other set of issues...

 

[noobzilla]

i bet someone is gonna argue that they couldve done some basic research and found the 5% rule (which i think is a valid point), then send us the binding agreement for 5% of the car cost, instead of just the $300/$1000 deposit. i personally think that wouldve caused a whole other set of issues...

Yes agree. Hmmm given where we are now though, not much point arguing what couldve been done. I guess question now is, if that's truly the case regarding the 5% deposit, would we still be able to add deposit later on to satisfy the 5% or it's too late now?

 

[digiboxer]

Yes agree. Hmmm given where we are now though, not much point arguing what couldve been done. I guess question now is, if that's truly the case regarding the 5% deposit, would we still be able to add deposit later on to satisfy the 5% or it's too late now?

#1...this is a very dead horse
#2...I confirmed even tho (based on a lot of tax law experiences) it sounded too good to be true. So I'm not blaming anyone
#3...there was obviously IRS precedent for the 5% threshold--- a member here researched and posted it early on. When the bill passed, the IRS published the same standard verbatim.
#4...I doubt the car companies acted unethically, but I'm surprised it came to this since it looks like an hour of research by their law firm could've avoided it.

JMHO....

 

[digiboxer]

Yes agree. Hmmm given where we are now though, not much point arguing what couldve been done. I guess question now is, if that's truly the case regarding the 5% deposit, would we still be able to add deposit later on to satisfy the 5% or it's too late now?

The way I read it you needed a "binding contract" (which we now know means 5% or more non-refundable) AND it had to have been entered into before the date the Act was passed. Biden signed it into law 2 days ago...hence the horse has passed away

 

[duke_dallas]

There may still be a glimmer of hope for those that confirmed in hopes of the securing the credit.

A well written liquidated damages clause will commonly include a provision that states that the liquidated damages are the "sole and exclusive" remedy for breach of the contract. I don't think there's any such language in the Lucid contract. In many (most?) states, an agreed upon remedy isn't considered an exclusive remedy unless the contract says so. Soooo...if you believe in longshots, the argument could be made that the Lucid contract does not actually "limit damages to a specified amount" but rather sets forth one remedy Lucid would be entitled to if the contract was cancelled. Note that the Lucid contract also includes the following language: "No single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power or privilege hereunder precludes any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power or privilege.

It would never happen, but in theory Lucid could retain the Order Deposit as liquidated damages and then sue the customer for further damages suffered. I'm not even going to try to defend this interpretation. Just food for thought. Or flame for the fire if you prefer.

 

[digiboxer]

I do not think that Lucid/Rivian/Fisker did not do enough research or DD to figure it out. It could be argued that there was enough historical evidence to suggest the amount was not high enough, but without direct guidance from the IRS before the passage of the bill, how would any of these companies know where "binding contract" with regards to purchasing EVs would fall? Each company took it's best guess at what the IRS might do and took their shot. From my viewpoint, there's no malice or incompetence when you are guessing to try and circumvent a provision in a newly passed law. It's much easier to say, "at least we tried but ultimately it's not our fault the IRS views it this way..." It seems the only companies who are immediately directly benefiting from this bill is Tesla and GM...

Well, they might wish they had checked with counsel before they headlined the Aug 10 emails this way

Get your Lucid Air.

And your tax credit.

 

[Halodde]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Lucid made it clear in the wording that is wasn't a guarantee so if people couldn't afford to lose $300 or $1000 then they shouldn't have taken the risk. I don't blame Lucid, Rivian or Fisker for this mess, they tried to find a loophole in a very short timeframe.

I get what you are saying. I think that "trying" would include having their lawyers do that basic research, though. And, I would have much rather dealt with upset reservation holders complaining about a 5% deposit and had accurate and thorough information than lose out on the tax credit like we apparently did. To be clear, I'm not upset about the $1,000 deposit because I'm still getting the car. I'm upset that the car is going to cost me $7,500 more than it would have if someone had given me accurate information last week. If my touring is going to be $100k, I'd still have coughed up another $4k now to save the $7,500 overall without a doubt. Just senseless to let the government who caused this problem have another $7,500 of my money.

 

[Yugi]

I get what you are saying. I think that "trying" would include having their lawyers do that basic research, though. And, I would have much rather dealt with upset reservation holders complaining about a 5% deposit and had accurate and thorough information than lose out on the tax credit like we apparently did. To be clear, I'm not upset about the $1,000 deposit because I'm still getting the car. I'm upset that the car is going to cost me $7,500 more than it would have if someone had given me accurate information last week. If my touring is going to be $100k, I'd still have coughed up another $4k now to save the $7,500 overall without a doubt. Just senseless to let the government who caused this problem have another $7,500 of my money.

May be lucid should honor the confirmations by reducing 7500$ from car price.

 

[Compy]

May be lucid should honor the confirmations by reducing 7500$ from car price.

That is what Vinfast is talking about doing.

 

[MPawelek]

May be lucid should honor the confirmations by reducing 7500$ from car price.

LOL