Nissan Rebate Vs IRS tax credit and State Rebate

[forte88]

I just leased a Leaf Yesterday and I'm kind of confused about something regarding the rebates. Upon leasing the car, I was given a "Nissan" rebate of $9775.00. When I asked the finance manager if that somehow intercepts my IRS tax credit he said "NO". He said any government tax incentives or state rebates are separate and I can file those separately. Not believing this can be true, I also asked my sales man who also just recently leased a Leaf and he said he plans on claiming his car to the IRS this tax year. So is this true? Nissan is giving me a $9975.00 rebate, AND I can claim my Leaf to the IRS for a $7500.00 credit (my tax liability is much larger than this, so I should get full credit). AND I can submit a rebate request to the California Sustainable Energy Commision. I didn't sign anything that showed they are taking any money from my Taxes. I didn't sign anything for them to claim my refund from the California Sustainable Energy Commission.

If they ARE taking those monies.. the total should be $10,0000, not $9775.00 which would mean that Nissan is collecting 225.00 of my tax credits and rebates. The California Rebate is $2500.00 not "up to" 2500.00. And with my income and Tax Liability.. I should be eligible for the entire $7500.00 credit. Again.. when I brought this up during the purchase.. they told me I can still file for those credits and rebate. Is this true? If true.. on a lease.. if I used all my rebates and tax credits.. it basically makes my payment for me for the entire length of the lease term. Can't be true.. is it?

 

[LEAFer]

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy the wealth of info available here !

Because you leased, the federal $7,500 cedit was part of the $9,775. The CA state rebate is something you can still apply for, but *ONLY* if your lease is for 36 months or longer.

(The salesman probably purchased, and thus will have to file for the $7,500 credit via his federal income tax return.)

 

[davewill]

The California rebate is always taken directly by the consumer. You file and get a check. The only requirements are that you keep the car registered in CA for the next three years (two year leases don't qualify at all). The federal $7500 tax credit is taken by the consumer if they purchase the vehicle. If you lease, the credit is taken by Nissan and credited to you as a capital cost reduction on the lease.

P.S. Never ask the salesman about taxes. It's barely worthwhile to ask them about the car. They don't know and will happily lie through their teeth if it will make a sale.

 

[ebill3]

Well, either the finance guy and the sales person are both very ill-informed, or they lied.

I would rather it be the former, but I think it is probably the latter.

 

[forte88]

Thanks for the quick reply.. and the welcome. I came into this thinking that they would take the Fed Tax credit. However,, I didn't sign anything stating that's what they would do which prompted me to ask the question. I will give the guys at Nissan a little education today about that bit of misinformation or "fib". My next issue is that I also leased a Plug in Prius this year. That is eligible for a $2500.00 tax credit. Toyota only gave me $1000.00 rebate which was the Toyota rebate at the time, and the sales person at Toyota also told me to claim the $2500.00 tax credit on my taxes this year. And claimed that they did so themselves for their own model leased last year and got it. So is Nissan taking the tax credit.. but Toyota isn't on a lease? BTW.. the salesperson did say they leased their Leaf and was planning on claiming it to the IRS this year (it wasn't a purchase). They also said they got less rebate than I did. They only got like 9400.00 and some change.

 

[Weatherman]

BTW.. the salesperson did say they leased their Leaf and was planning on claiming it to the IRS this year (it wasn't a purchase).

He better hope he doesn't get audited. The tax credit goes to the first registered owner. When you lease a car you aren't the owner and the dealer isn't the owner; the leasing company is the owner.

 

[garymelora]

He won't get audited, the rebate will be denied from the beginning. He will be disappointed, though, and I don't feel sorry for him. Nissan shouldn't try to train salesman to give tax advice, but they could at least tell them to say nothing other than "talk to your accountant".

 

[Volusiano]

On the subject of Toyota leasing. I read that Tony Williams (a well known poster on this forum) said that he recently bought a RAV4EV instead of leasing because Toyota has an evil scheme on their lease about cashing out the tax credit on the lease but only giving you back part of it and keeping the rest for themselves. I don't have the link but I'm sure if you go into the RAV4EV thread you'll find a reference on it.

 

[cwerdna]

On the subject of Toyota leasing. I read that Tony Williams (a well known poster on this forum) said that he recently bought a RAV4EV instead of leasing because Toyota has an evil scheme on their lease about cashing out the tax credit on the lease but only giving you back part of it and keeping the rest for themselves. I don't have the link but I'm sure if you go into the RAV4EV thread you'll find a reference on it.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=240964#p240964" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LEAFer]

I haven't dealt with tax form 8936, and so I am not sure what supporting documentation the IRS requires. It sounds to me like the salesman is either mis-informed, even regarding his own leased LEAF, or purposely trying to cheat (by double-dipping on the same VIN). The IRS may or may not catch it, depending on what the form requires ... but with this much misinfo it's no wonder the IRS is taking a very long time (and giving many MNL members a hard time) with the refunds.

As far as Toyota Lease is concerned: Nissan is doing it right, Toyota is mistreating the customer (keeping some or all of the tax credit as "profit" for themselves). In the case of GM: US Bank is also cheating, kind of. Rather than subtracting the $7,500 from the negotiated price or the MSRP (cap cost reduction), they add it to the residual. Meaning you benefit upon lease initiation, but you basically lose it again if you are thinking of buying it out at the end of the term.

 

[planet4ever]

As far as Toyota Lease is concerned: Nissan is doing it right, Toyota is mistreating the customer (keeping some or all of the tax credit as "profit" for themselves). In the case of GM: US Bank is also cheating, kind of. Rather than subtracting the $7,500 from the negotiated price or the MSRP (cap cost reduction), they add it to the residual. Meaning you benefit upon lease initiation, but you basically lose it again if you are thinking of buying it out at the end of the term.

While I agree with your analysis, I would question the pejorative terms you used. As weatherman said, the federal law states that the money goes to the first owner, which is the leasing company. What deals the manufacturer or dealer want to make with the (often closely related) leasing company, or with you, are a matter of their business practice choices, and not a matter of law. There is no hint in the law that you, as lessee, have any claim to any of that money. They are not cheating or mistreating you if you never see it. And on the other hand, Nissan isn't just being "nice" to you. You need to look at this from their perspective, not yours. Nissan and GM are taking routes designed to increase volume. Toyota doesn't seem as interested in doing that.

Ray

 

[LEAFer]

As far as Toyota Lease is concerned: Nissan is doing it right, Toyota is mistreating the customer (keeping some or all of the tax credit as "profit" for themselves). In the case of GM: US Bank is also cheating, kind of. Rather than subtracting the $7,500 from the negotiated price or the MSRP (cap cost reduction), they add it to the residual. Meaning you benefit upon lease initiation, but you basically lose it again if you are thinking of buying it out at the end of the term.

While I agree with your analysis, I would question the pejorative terms you used. As weatherman said, the federal law states that the money goes to the first owner, which is the leasing company. What deals the manufacturer or dealer want to make with the (often closely related) leasing company, or with you, are a matter of their business practice choices, and not a matter of law. There is no hint in the law that you, as lessee, have any claim to any of that money. They are not cheating or mistreating you if you never see it. And on the other hand, Nissan isn't just being "nice" to you. You need to look at this from their perspective, not yours. Nissan and GM are taking routes designed to increase volume. Toyota doesn't seem as interested in doing that.

Ray

Ok.

When I said "[Nissan is] doing it right" I mean in a moral/ethical (not a legal) way. And, again, when I said "[Toyota] is mistreating", I also meant in a non-legal way. I was not implying that the lessor is breaking the law, nor that the dealer is. But I would prefer (as a customer) to be "king" and to be "treated right". Ofcourse, I could always walk away from the "deal" !

( Although a [Nissan] dealer (or his representative) telling a lessee to apply for the federal tax credit borders on ... ok I will curb my appetite for pejorative terms :lol: )

Still, you make a good point about volume.

 

[forte88]

I'm sorry.. but the company that is taking a tax credit on something they are not making the tax payment on.. or even having full possession and use of the said vehicle is a horrible loop hole in the tax code. For those dealerships like Toyota to blatantly lie to their customers, even if it's just verbally, is just beyond comprehension to me. When I leased the Leaf, I mentioned it about 5 times, and even upon leaving the finance managers office.. I turned around.. and said. "I just want to be clear,, I can still claim the tax credit on this after this rebate". He said "yes". Same thing happened at Toyota. I probably mentioned it even more over there because the paperwork process took all day. At Toyota, I talked about it with two different sales staff that worked on the deal with me.. and also talked about it to the Finance manger because I was saying how sweet the deal is with this credit. There should be a law with full disclosure on this. It's not written on any of the signs in their offices. I went to Nissan today.. and spoke with the sales person that did my deal and advised him that he is giving false information. I'm not quite as p.o'd at Nissan because at least I got a great rebate of $9775.00. No paperwork said anywhere about how the rebate uses your FED tax credit at the dealership. I can at least see the money in the rebate with Nissan. With toyota.. they called it a toyota rebate.. not a Fed tax credit offset which is really what they should be calling it, and it's less then half of the rebate available. This is just really bad. Car Dealers.. if there ever was a valid reason for a form of a type ethnic cleansing.. this is it.

 

[Randy]

Google for IRS tax form 8936, then look at the bottom of page 2...

Only the lessor gets to claim the tax credit on a lease (not the lessee). They can choose to give some back to you on a lease deal (Nissan credits the whole amount to you), but they are not obligated to. Toyota is not giving back all the tax credit to people that lease...

IRS Form 8936 text from bottom of page 2 of form:
In addition to certification, the following requirements must be met to qualify for the credit:
• You are the owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle is leased, only the lessor and not the lessee, is entitled to the credit;

 

[forte88]

Google for IRS tax form 8936, then look at the bottom of page 2...

Only the lessor gets to claim the tax credit on a lease (not the lessee). They can choose to give some back to you on a lease deal (Nissan credits the whole amount to you), but they are not obligated to. Toyota is not giving back all the tax credit to people that lease...

IRS Form 8936 text from bottom of page 2 of form:
In addition to certification, the following requirements must be met to qualify for the credit:
• You are the owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle is leased, only the lessor and not the lessee, is entitled to the credit;

I don't care what the form says. The policy is just wrong. The incentive was to go to consumers.. not to corporations.. Wasn't that the intent of the stimulus? Toyota doesn't need any friggin stimulus or green energy incentives.. They make enough profits.. consumers need incentive to obtain it. Not to mention the lies at the dealerships regarding this.. that's the worst part of it.

 

[LEAFer]

Note: Just to be more accurate. The $7,500 Federal Tax Credit we keep talking about is really "up to" $7,500. It depends on the size of the battery. For BEVs and the Chevy Volt you're pretty much guaranteed to qualify for the full $7,500 (but see below), because GM was involved in writing the legislation and it tops out at a (nominal) battery size of 16 kWh (size in Volt). (Just about any BEV worth its salt has that or larger battery.) However, on the Toyota plug-in Prius it's much smaller ... 4.4kWh ?? The credit requires a 4kWh minimum, and adds $417 for each kWh above that. So ... $2,500 + 12*417 for 16kWh = 7,504, rounded down to the maximum of $7,500 for 16kWh, but only $2,500 for the PIP's "small" battery.

For a buyer the actual Form8936 effective benefit is the lesser of $7,500 (or smaller as discussed above) and the tax payer's income tax liability; see other threads.

The California CVRP also varies by vehicle (not necessarily battery size ... complicated criteria), the maximum currently is $2,500, but the PIP (and Chevy Volt) is "only" $1,500.

 

[planet4ever]

I don't care what the form says. The policy is just wrong. The incentive was to go to consumers.. not to corporations.. Wasn't that the intent of the stimulus? Toyota doesn't need any friggin stimulus or green energy incentives.. They make enough profits.. consumers need incentive to obtain it. Not to mention the lies at the dealerships regarding this.. that's the worst part of it.

Actually, the credit as we have it today is a renewal and very slight modification of the one in the TARP law signed by President Bush in 2008. In general, TARP money didn't go to consumers. It was focused on keeping corporations from going bankrupt.

Reference: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr1424enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr1424enr.pdf

Ray

 

[forte88]

I haven't dealt with tax form 8936, and so I am not sure what supporting documentation the IRS requires. It sounds to me like the salesman is either mis-informed, even regarding his own leased LEAF, or purposely trying to cheat (by double-dipping on the same VIN). The IRS may or may not catch it, depending on what the form requires ... but with this much misinfo it's no wonder the IRS is taking a very long time (and giving many MNL members a hard time) with the refunds.

As far as Toyota Lease is concerned: Nissan is doing it right, Toyota is mistreating the customer (keeping some or all of the tax credit as "profit" for themselves). In the case of GM: US Bank is also cheating, kind of. Rather than subtracting the $7,500 from the negotiated price or the MSRP (cap cost reduction), they add it to the residual. Meaning you benefit upon lease initiation, but you basically lose it again if you are thinking of buying it out at the end of the term.

TARP was not part of the stimulus. TARP was the bank bail out under Bush. The American Reinvestment ACT under President Obama was several months later which is a big part of what is funding this EV tax credit was meant for "individuals", not corporations. EVen the IRS
See http://www.irs.gov/uac/Energy-I...onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Even the title of the IRS code says Incentives for "Individuals".

 

[LEAFer]

@forte88: I think you meant to quote "planet4ever" ... not me.

 

[forte88]

@forte88: I think you meant to quote "planet4ever" ... not me.

oops.. sorry.. it was early.. or maybe very late..