Why
in [4x4]
|
From: Dorothy Young on 24 Dec 2009 08:01 For many years, 4 wheel drives especialy suv's. All suv's genaraly do is same thing any sedan would do. How many drivers of suv's have put it in 4wheeldr and driven thru someone's property? Sounds like a good way to buy yourself much trouble. If you plow snow, 4wheel is mandatory. But how many awant to have to buy a plow and equipment to plow? Not many I'd guess. But I lived up in the Rockies. many years back. In a county that was 80% FS and BLM. FS roads were smoother than alo6t of streets here in MA. They also went for miles but then they became no better than trails. At the time i had a 1971 International Scout geared low. Could do what a Hummer would do. The Hummer is perhaps the most ridiculous. It was an military vehicle designed for for slogging thru swamps to prerve the American Way. Hummers started appearing in US cities. Aperson uses less sense buying this as if he bought a semitractor.
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 29 Dec 2009 20:53 Thank the IRS. Years ago, they decided to punish anyone who used cars and station wagons for business purposes. But the rules for expenses associated with 'trucks' were much more reasonable. So people switched to trucks. When Congress increased the definition of a 'truck' for the purpose of expense allowances from 6000 GVW to 8000 GVW, we saw the advent of Hummers, Excursions, and even larger vehicles. As long as the tax laws are going to punish businesses who use small cars, we're going to be stuck with big trucks. -- Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel.
From: PeterD on 30 Dec 2009 09:02 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:53:03 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: >Thank the IRS. > >Years ago, they decided to punish anyone who used cars and station wagons >for business purposes. But the rules for expenses associated with 'trucks' >were much more reasonable. So people switched to trucks. > >When Congress increased the definition of a 'truck' for the purpose of >expense allowances from 6000 GVW to 8000 GVW, we saw the advent of Hummers, >Excursions, and even larger vehicles. > >As long as the tax laws are going to punish businesses who use small cars, >we're going to be stuck with big trucks. I think you have over simplified the situation some. What the IRS was attempting to do was prevent a non-business from expensing the family car. A formally organized business has less problems in this situation, and there are methods to do what you want (have a smaller car for your business...) I'd strongly recommend you contact your CPA, or tax consultant and they will be glad to find a solution to your problem. As far as "Stuck with big trucks" that bit makes no sense. No business drives a big truck unless they have to. The operating costs far exceed any (perhaps non-existant) tax benefits. I know, we use big trucks (over 8K GVW) and would gladly use smaller ones but it is not feasible--ever loaded a couple of thousand pounds of stock in a Prius?
|
Pages: 1 Prev: SeLL:BOSCH,ZEXEL,DENSO,ISUZU,IVECO,MATSUBISHI-,CAT,KATO,KOMATSU,CUMMINS Next: pinion seal |