Fisker Ocean Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR RWD
Joined
·
512 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have been reading too many exasperating and uninformed posts regarding this and thought I would offer a perspective based on real-life experience with incentive programs from Washington. (Apologies in advance for the super-long post, but if you want to know how this will play out I think you will find it worthwhile.)

First things first: no one knows if the strategy will work. Fisker has been incredibly responsive to our feedback and proactive in doing all the logical things it is able to do to try to make the Ocean qualify under the Transition Rule in the bill which states that as long as you have "entered into a written binding contract to purchase, a new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle" prior to the date of enactment then you will qualify "to treat such vehicle as having been placed in service on the day before the date of enactment of this Act." The implication of this is that vehicles which qualify under this transition rule are not affected by the battery content, domestic assembly, or income and pricing caps.

What is next? The bill will be enacted and then an actual human being (likely career civil servant) in the treasury department will be tagged to lead its implementation on the various rules to operationalize the EV Section of the legislation (quite likely this person is already known). That person will be reporting to another Treasury person (almost certainly a political appointee) who is responsible for implementing the treasury-related rules in the full legislation (too numerous to mention). It will be an insane amount of work all of which needs to be completed by year end.

The key question for our little tiny corner of the universe is the definition of "written binding contract to purchase." So Fisker (possibly along with other interested parties) will request a meeting with the Treasury person in charge of this. The meeting will be scheduled. In the room will be the OEM (probably HF himself), their lobbyists, their lawyers, the Treasury person in charge of the EV implementation, his/her boss, the lawyers for treasury, probably someone from DoT, and possibly someone from the White House along with a cast of another dozen or so people.

Fisker will explain that under the Transition Rule... (etc.) ... and that Fisker has 11,182 (making up the number but not far off) US taxpayers who have entered into binding contracts to purchase the Ocean. It will explain that these customers have all made a non-refundable downpayment, selected their model, and that pricing for the model is fixed. It will explain that customers are still able to select colors and wheels and "some other options" as they get closer to production, but the price of the base model is fixed. They will give them copies of the contracts. They will say that these vehicles will start shipping in December and should be completed by end of 2023 but it is possible that due to unforeseen production delays, some may not arrive until 2024. (The Treasury folks will wince when they hear that.) Fisker (and the others) will then make an impassioned plea that these taxpayers are counting on the tax credit, that they are a small American start-up business, etc. etc.

Fisker will propose specific language for how to define "written binding contract to purchase" (ideally in concert with other OEMs) and leave that language with Treasury following the meeting. Treasury will be keenly focused on the number of tax credits involved across all of the OEMs. If it is a couple tens of thousands it will be easier than if it is in the hundred thousand plus. So what happens with Rivian, Lucid, GM, Tesla, Hyundai, etc. will weigh on the outcome. We will know this by week's end. Smaller is better. The Treasury lawyer will say that historically a "binding contract to purchase" includes the following items... Fisker will argue (through its lobbyist) that the company's contracts meet these criteria even if one or two specifics are not the same.

If the meeting looks like it is going against Fisker, they will pivot and try to make the case that most certainly under any definition the ONE orders qualify because all options are fully known, final purchase price is fully known, etc. But they will try to avoid that. They will also draw analogies from traditional vehicle manufacturers about dealer installed options. They will say that any of these dealer vehicles that qualify could also have prices change after the fact due to extended warranties, dealer-installed accessories, etc. and Fisker is no different it just has no dealers.

The discussion will wind down - it will last about 40 minutes - they will all thank one another for taking time to discuss the issue. Some hallway conversations will ensue between Fisker and members of staff who are sympathetic to its position. There may be some specific follow-on questions.

Fisker will ask the Senators and representatives from California to send a letter / make a call to Treasury in support of their position. Then there will be a several week pause. Then the IRS will publish the rules, and we will all know.

The End.
 

·
Registered
2019 Nissan Murano SL
Joined
·
161 Posts
Have been reading too many exasperating and uninformed posts regarding this and thought I would offer a perspective based on real-life experience with incentive programs from Washington. (Apologies in advance for the super-long post, but if you want to know how this will play out I think you will find it worthwhile.)

First things first: no one knows if the strategy will work. Fisker has been incredibly responsive to our feedback and proactive in doing all the logical things it is able to do to try to make the Ocean qualify under the Transition Rule in the bill which states that as long as you have "entered into a written binding contract to purchase, a new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle" prior to the date of enactment then you will qualify "to treat such vehicle as having been placed in service on the day before the date of enactment of this Act." The implication of this is that vehicles which qualify under this transition rule are not affected by the battery content, domestic assembly, or income and pricing caps.

What is next? The bill will be enacted and then an actual human being (likely career civil servant) in the treasury department will be tagged to lead its implementation on the various rules to operationalize the EV Section of the legislation (quite likely this person is already known). That person will be reporting to another Treasury person (almost certainly a political appointee) who is responsible for implementing the treasury-related rules in the full legislation (too numerous to mention). It will be an insane amount of work all of which needs to be completed by year end.

The key question for our little tiny corner of the universe is the definition of "written binding contract to purchase." So Fisker (possibly along with other interested parties) will request a meeting with the Treasury person in charge of this. The meeting will be scheduled. In the room will be the OEM (probably HF himself), their lobbyists, their lawyers, the Treasury person in charge of the EV implementation, his/her boss, the lawyers for treasury, probably someone from DoT, and possibly someone from the White House along with a cast of another dozen or so people.

Fisker will explain that under the Transition Rule... (etc.) ... and that Fisker has 11,182 (making up the number but not far off) US taxpayers who have entered into binding contracts to purchase the Ocean. It will explain that these customers have all made a non-refundable downpayment, selected their model, and that pricing for the model is fixed. It will explain that customers are still able to select colors and wheels and "some other options" as they get closer to production, but the price of the base model is fixed. They will give them copies of the contracts. They will say that these vehicles will start shipping in December and should be completed by end of 2023 but it is possible that due to unforeseen production delays, some may not arrive until 2024. (The Treasury folks will wince when they hear that.) Fisker (and the others) will then make an impassioned plea that these taxpayers are counting on the tax credit, that they are a small American start-up business, etc. etc.

Fisker will propose specific language for how to define "written binding contract to purchase" (ideally in concert with other OEMs) and leave that language with Treasury following the meeting. Treasury will be keenly focused on the number of tax credits involved across all of the OEMs. If it is a couple tens of thousands it will be easier than if it is in the hundred thousand plus. So what happens with Rivian, Lucid, GM, Tesla, Hyundai, etc. will weigh on the outcome. We will know this by week's end. Smaller is better. The Treasury lawyer will say that historically a "binding contract to purchase" includes the following items... Fisker will argue (through its lobbyist) that the company's contracts meet these criteria even if one or two specifics are not the same.

If the meeting looks like it is going against Fisker, they will pivot and try to make the case that most certainly under any definition the ONE orders qualify because all options are fully known, final purchase price is fully known, etc. But they will try to avoid that. They will also draw analogies from traditional vehicle manufacturers about dealer installed options. They will say that any of these dealer vehicles that qualify could also have prices change after the fact due to extended warranties, dealer-installed accessories, etc. and Fisker is no different it just has no dealers.

The discussion will wind down - it will last about 40 minutes - they will all thank one another for taking time to discuss the issue. Some hallway conversations will ensue between Fisker and members of staff who are sympathetic to its position. There may be some specific follow-on questions.

Fisker will ask the Senators and representatives from California to send a letter / make a call to Treasury in support of their position. Then there will be a several week pause. Then the IRS will publish the rules, and we will all know.

The End.
Nice job...Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Fisker is asking us to make the $250.00 deposit non refundable, and it might be likely they will be excluded on the $7500.00 tax credit ( Assembly outside of US, and mineral content of battery non US based, delivery after 12/31/2022)
This does not sound good, as it is a significant sum of money lost.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Fisker is asking us to make the $250.00 deposit non refundable, and it might be likely they will be excluded on the $7500.00 tax credit ( Assembly outside of US, and mineral content of battery non US based, delivery after 12/31/2022)
This does not sound good, as it is a significant sum of money lost.
$250 is a significant amount of money? It's pretty much the standard these days. Tesla has a $250 non-refundable deposit too.

If the $250 deposit is that big of a commitment for someone then the Ocean is out of their range. That sounds really bad, but I don't think it's going to be a very wise financial decision for anyone to move forward with leasing/purchasing an Ocean if the $250 is a "significant sum of money". I'd happily pay $250 for even the smallest of chances that this works out and I get the $7,500 credit.

Welcome to the forums.
 

·
Registered
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR RWD
Joined
·
512 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Fisker is asking us to make the $250.00 deposit non refundable, and it might be likely they will be excluded on the $7500.00 tax credit ( Assembly outside of US, and mineral content of battery non US based, delivery after 12/31/2022)
This does not sound good, as it is a significant sum of money lost.
I agree with @HotIce. You should not order the Ocean if you do not think it is a compelling proposition without the tax credit. If you do think it is a compelling proposition without the credit, then you should absolutely order it now and make your $250 non-refundable. You will lose nothing and you may be able to gain the tax credit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotIce

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
I think fisker HAD to do something. They were in a tough spot having the rug pulled out out from under them at the last second like this. I think it's a smart move, but not totally convinced it will be totally legal enough to make the old credit work for anyone who committed to buy this week. I was planning on buying an i4, and think it's crazy to buy a car I've never even sat in, but bmw didn't work to save the tax credit for me and fisker did, so fisker got my money.
 

·
Registered
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR RWD
Joined
·
512 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I think fisker HAD to do something. They were in a tough spot having the rug pulled out out from under them at the last second like this. I think it's a smart move, but not totally convinced it will be totally legal enough to make the old credit work for anyone who committed to buy this week. I was planning on buying an i4, and think it's crazy to buy a car I've never even sat in, but bmw didn't work to save the tax credit for me and fisker did, so fisker got my money.
Very well said! We do not know whether this will work, but Fisker has done its level best to try to mitigate a bad situation. I sincerely appreciate it. (FWIW, I never sat in the 2011 Volt or the 2018 Model 3 I bought either. The joys of being an early adopter!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: slipnslider

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Fisker is asking us to make the $250.00 deposit non refundable, and it might be likely they will be excluded on the $7500.00 tax credit ( Assembly outside of US, and mineral content of battery non US based, delivery after 12/31/2022)
This does not sound good, as it is a significant sum of money lost.
Yeah, not significant in this world. Welcome to the forum, looking forward to post number 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baker

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
$250 is a significant amount of money? It's pretty much the standard these days. Tesla has a $250 non-refundable deposit too.

If the $250 deposit is that big of a commitment for someone then the Ocean is out of their range. That sounds really bad, but I don't think it's going to be a very wise financial decision for anyone to move forward with leasing/purchasing an Ocean if the $250 is a "significant sum of money". I'd happily pay $250 for even the smallest of chances that this works out and I get the $7,500 credit.

Welcome to the forums.
It is not the $250.00 that is the significant sum, it is the $7500 tax credit that is significant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Important discussion for sure. The $7,500 credit is likely a deal breaker for me and that is why I am willing to risk the $250 to keep that possibility alive as long as possible. Here’s my question: I don’t see how you could ever file for the credit on your 2022 return based solely on a $250 down payment. What happens if you subsequently canceled the order? And… if you attempt to claim the credit on your 2023 return when you take possession of the car, the requisite IRS form may no.longer exist due to the new legislation. Wow…this is like having a minor role in a soap opera.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Important discussion for sure. The $7,500 credit is likely a deal breaker for me and that is why I am willing to risk the $250 to keep that possibility alive as long as possible. Here’s my question: I don’t see how you could ever file for the credit on your 2022 return based solely on a $250 down payment. What happens if you subsequently canceled the order? And… if you attempt to claim the credit on your 2023 return when you take possession of the car, the requisite IRS form may no.longer exist due to the new legislation. Wow…this is like having a minor role in a soap opera.
I doubt they'd get rid of the IRS form when they've said they will implement a transitional period. If I understood correctly, the $250 gives you an order and not just a place in line. If you cancel, you're out the $250.
 

·
Registered
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR RWD
Joined
·
512 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Thanks. I get that but I still wonder in which tax year you’ll potentially get the credit: the year you confirm the order (‘22) or the year you take possession of the Ocean (‘23)…
The way it is written it appears to me (may be wrong on this) that you have to wait until you take delivery and then you have to claim it on your 2022 taxes. If that happens after April 15 2023, you can (a) file an amended return and get a rebate or (b) file an extension and file in the Fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMBrown

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
$250 is a significant amount of money? It's pretty much the standard these days. Tesla has a $250 non-refundable deposit too.

If the $250 deposit is that big of a commitment for someone then the Ocean is out of their range. That sounds really bad, but I don't think it's going to be a very wise financial decision for anyone to move forward with leasing/purchasing an Ocean if the $250 is a "significant sum of money". I'd happily pay $250 for even the smallest of chances that this works out and I get the $7,500 credit.

Welcome to the forums.
Yes, that is exactly why I did it. I converted my reservation with the "gamble" that $250 will turn into $7500 and that it might lock in my pricing on the Ultra (I am right on the cusp of 40k reservations). I might still get the Ocean if I don't get the rebate but it will certainly factor into my decision. I can easily give up $250 to go get something else that is easier to finance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Have been reading too many exasperating and uninformed posts regarding this and thought I would offer a perspective based on real-life experience with incentive programs from Washington. (Apologies in advance for the super-long post, but if you want to know how this will play out I think you will find it worthwhile.)

First things first: no one knows if the strategy will work. Fisker has been incredibly responsive to our feedback and proactive in doing all the logical things it is able to do to try to make the Ocean qualify under the Transition Rule in the bill which states that as long as you have "entered into a written binding contract to purchase, a new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle" prior to the date of enactment then you will qualify "to treat such vehicle as having been placed in service on the day before the date of enactment of this Act." The implication of this is that vehicles which qualify under this transition rule are not affected by the battery content, domestic assembly, or income and pricing caps.

What is next? The bill will be enacted and then an actual human being (likely career civil servant) in the treasury department will be tagged to lead its implementation on the various rules to operationalize the EV Section of the legislation (quite likely this person is already known). That person will be reporting to another Treasury person (almost certainly a political appointee) who is responsible for implementing the treasury-related rules in the full legislation (too numerous to mention). It will be an insane amount of work all of which needs to be completed by year end.

The key question for our little tiny corner of the universe is the definition of "written binding contract to purchase." So Fisker (possibly along with other interested parties) will request a meeting with the Treasury person in charge of this. The meeting will be scheduled. In the room will be the OEM (probably HF himself), their lobbyists, their lawyers, the Treasury person in charge of the EV implementation, his/her boss, the lawyers for treasury, probably someone from DoT, and possibly someone from the White House along with a cast of another dozen or so people.

Fisker will explain that under the Transition Rule... (etc.) ... and that Fisker has 11,182 (making up the number but not far off) US taxpayers who have entered into binding contracts to purchase the Ocean. It will explain that these customers have all made a non-refundable downpayment, selected their model, and that pricing for the model is fixed. It will explain that customers are still able to select colors and wheels and "some other options" as they get closer to production, but the price of the base model is fixed. They will give them copies of the contracts. They will say that these vehicles will start shipping in December and should be completed by end of 2023 but it is possible that due to unforeseen production delays, some may not arrive until 2024. (The Treasury folks will wince when they hear that.) Fisker (and the others) will then make an impassioned plea that these taxpayers are counting on the tax credit, that they are a small American start-up business, etc. etc.

Fisker will propose specific language for how to define "written binding contract to purchase" (ideally in concert with other OEMs) and leave that language with Treasury following the meeting. Treasury will be keenly focused on the number of tax credits involved across all of the OEMs. If it is a couple tens of thousands it will be easier than if it is in the hundred thousand plus. So what happens with Rivian, Lucid, GM, Tesla, Hyundai, etc. will weigh on the outcome. We will know this by week's end. Smaller is better. The Treasury lawyer will say that historically a "binding contract to purchase" includes the following items... Fisker will argue (through its lobbyist) that the company's contracts meet these criteria even if one or two specifics are not the same.

If the meeting looks like it is going against Fisker, they will pivot and try to make the case that most certainly under any definition the ONE orders qualify because all options are fully known, final purchase price is fully known, etc. But they will try to avoid that. They will also draw analogies from traditional vehicle manufacturers about dealer installed options. They will say that any of these dealer vehicles that qualify could also have prices change after the fact due to extended warranties, dealer-installed accessories, etc. and Fisker is no different it just has no dealers.

The discussion will wind down - it will last about 40 minutes - they will all thank one another for taking time to discuss the issue. Some hallway conversations will ensue between Fisker and members of staff who are sympathetic to its position. There may be some specific follow-on questions.

Fisker will ask the Senators and representatives from California to send a letter / make a call to Treasury in support of their position. Then there will be a several week pause. Then the IRS will publish the rules, and we will all know.

The End.
Wow, really nice and concise. Very helpful. Thanks.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top