Tesla Model 3

spyderski

Dardania wrote: »

Maybe they would, as they also pay for not meeting emissions targets for the country?

A very valid point, and they should definitely be doing their best to incentivise the purchase of electric vehicles. However, my specific point is that a BIK exemption will unfairly benefit a certain section of the population, and will be of no benefit to the vast majority.

goz83

spyderski wrote: »

A very valid point, and they should definitely be doing their best to incentivise the purchase of electric vehicles. However, my specific point is that a BIK exemption will unfairly benefit a certain section of the population, and will be of no benefit to the vast majority.

But it would get more EVs on the road and get people used to seeing EVs on the road and would encourage more sales, reducing emissions, yada yada

spyderski

goz83 wrote: »

But it would get more EVs on the road and get people used to seeing EVs on the road and would encourage more sales, reducing emissions, yada yada

Would it get more EV's on the road than other incentives? On what information do you base this assertion?

To be honest, people here seem to have a problem understanding my point; perhaps I am not making it clearly enough.
I have no problem with incentives, In fact I am all for them, I just feel that a BIK exemption specifically is neither a fair or an efficient way of encouraging EV use, and there is a multitude of more sensible incentives which could be introduced.

Dardania

spyderski wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Maybe they would, as they also pay for not meeting emissions targets for the country?

A very valid point, and they should definitely be doing their best to incentivise the purchase of electric vehicles. However, my specific point is that a BIK exemption will unfairly benefit a certain section of the population, and will be of no benefit to the vast majority.

Okay - I see your point. There is still the secondary benefit to the majority of improved air quality however?
Maybe a complete tax elimination on EVs? As I understand, VRT is still paid on these cars?

goz83

spyderski wrote: »

Would it get more EV's on the road than other incentives? On what information do you base this assertion?

To be honest, people here seem to have a problem understanding my point; perhaps I am not making it clearly enough.
I have no problem with incentives, In fact I am all for them, I just feel that a BIK exemption specifically is neither a fair or an efficient way of encouraging EV use, and there is a multitude of more sensible incentives which could be introduced.

Yes, it would. I base that on my own situation, where, for example, if there were 0% BIK, I would already have purchased another EV. EVs are generally more expensive than the equivalent ICE, so BIK makes them less attractive. The UK offered BIK clearance and reductions on BEV and PHEVs and they sold like hot cakes.

Then you have the knock on effect where people would see more EVs on the road and become comfortable with the idea of buying an EV and so EV ownership would increase.

spyderski

Firstly. there is no comparison between Ireland and the UK in company car ownership, so I can't see it having that dramatic an effect anyway.
Secondly, the fact that companies are already able to avail of a generous capital write-off allowance on the purchase of EV's should be more than enough company-targetted incentive.
EV use would be best encouraged through incentives available to the majority of the population, not just to a select group of proprietary directors or very highly paid executives. If anyone feels otherwise, fair enough, we are all entitled to an opinion.

spyderski

There is already anecdotal evidence of the capital allowance being abused, a BIK break would only exacerbate that issue.

KCross

spyderski wrote: »

Firstly. there is no comparison between Ireland and the UK in company car ownership, so I can't see it having that dramatic an effect anyway.

Why? They have larger scale but the fundamentals arent that different... are they? Have you data of some kind that shows otherwise?

spyderski wrote: »

Secondly, the fact that companies are already able to avail of a generous capital write-off allowance on the purchase of EV's should be more than enough company-targetted incentive.

Its not that generous. It just front loads the write off in year 1 for EV's rather than across multiple years on an ICE. Its an incentive but just not that big an incentive. Most company cars would be kept for 3-5 years anyway so the overall end result isnt that different.

spyderski wrote: »

EV use would be best encouraged through incentives available to the majority of the population, not just to a select group of proprietary directors or very highly paid executives. If anyone feels otherwise, fair enough, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I agree. It should be targeted at the majority, not the minority. A "few" directors wont have the kind of impact we need to see to meet emissions targets. We need mass adoption not tinkering around the edges. BIK can play a part in that too though if the costs arent too high and thats the important piece. e.g. If it costs millions on BIK relief, I'd rather see it spent on improving the public charging infrastructure instead.

spyderski wrote: »

There is already anecdotal evidence of the capital allowance being abused, a BIK break would only exacerbate that issue.

How is it abused? You either have a qualifying asset or not and you claim it or not. How do you abuse that system? Not saying you cant, just wondering what evidence you are referring to and how it can be done.

goz83

spyderski wrote: »

Firstly. there is no comparison between Ireland and the UK in company car ownership, so I can't see it having that dramatic an effect anyway.
Secondly, the fact that companies are already able to avail of a generous capital write-off allowance on the purchase of EV's should be more than enough company-targetted incentive.
EV use would be best encouraged through incentives available to the majority of the population, not just to a select group of proprietary directors or very highly paid executives. If anyone feels otherwise, fair enough, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I think we are broadly similar when it comes to most things, including BIK rules.

Smaller companies, or Sole Traders would be crippled with BIK, so they generally don't get company vehicles, unless it's a commercial vehicle, ruling out tens of thousands of potential buyers.

Most incentives for private ownership are are not typically transferable for business use afaik. I wanted to buy an EV via my company, but accountant recommended against it because the BIK would have killed any savings and then some. Over 3 years, it was over 10k in BIK for an Ioniq.

spyderski

Apparently mainly self employed IT contactors buying an EV, barely driving it, and selling it/trading it in 12 months later. The depreciation is less than the tax saving through the capital write off. A car dealer told me about it, I've no other evidence than that.

Calahonda52

spyderski wrote: »

Apparently mainly self employed IT contactors buying an EV, barely driving it, and selling it/trading it in 12 months later. The depreciation is less than the tax saving through the capital write off. A car dealer told me about it, I've no other evidence than that.

I suspect by your final comment you don't really buy this.

This will not fly, Revenue-wise: may be the next exploration topic of the self employed IT guys who thought driving to and from work mileage was chargeable as an expense.

I did some work for a pal on this: final bill was euro 65,000

KCross

spyderski wrote: »

Apparently mainly self employed IT contactors buying an EV, barely driving it, and selling it/trading it in 12 months later. The depreciation is less than the tax saving through the capital write off. A car dealer told me about it, I've no other evidence than that.

I doubt the figures would add up for that.

If you buy, for instance, a 50k EV you get to reduce your corporation tax by 6250 on year 1 (12.5% of 50k) as opposed to 1250 each year for 5 years.

By buying and claiming on year 1 and selling it on year 2 you will have "conned" the revenue out of 5k. Now... show me any new car(ICE or EV) that depreciates less than 5k on year 1!!... not to mind a 50k EV.

I dont think the figures add up for wholesale abuse of that system.

spyderski

Calahonda52 wrote: »

I suspect by your final comment you don't really buy this.

This will not fly, Revenue-wise: may be the next exploration topic of the self employed IT guys who thought driving to and from work mileage was chargeable as an expense.

I did some work for a pal on this: final bill was euro 65,000

There's no Issue with it "revenue-wise", its a straightforward 12 month capital write off. The only thing preventing it would be the depreciation figure...

spyderski

KCross wrote: »

I doubt the figures would add up for that.

If you buy, for instance, a 50k EV you get to reduce your corporation tax by 6250 on year 1 (12.5% of 50k) as opposed to 1250 each year for 5 years.

By buying and claiming on year 1 and selling it on year 2 you will have "conned" the revenue out of 5k. Now... show me any new car(ICE or EV) that depreciates less than 5k on year 1!!... not to mind a 50k EV.

I dont think the figures add up for wholesale abuse of that system.

Just saw this after my last post, and I agree. It does reduce whatever depreciation there is by the €6250 though, so at the very least it incentivises companies to change the car annually and avail of the write off allowance every year.

josip

spyderski wrote: »

Apparently mainly self employed IT contactors buying an EV, barely driving it, and selling it/trading it in 12 months later. The depreciation is less than the tax saving through the capital write off. A car dealer told me about it, I've no other evidence than that.

Any idea why it's mainly IT contractors?
Are they the modern equivalent of 'my mate Dave' for car dealers?

KCross

spyderski wrote: »

Just saw this after my last post, and I agree. It does reduce whatever depreciation there is by the €6250 though, so at the very least it incentivises companies to change the car annually and avail of the write off allowance every year.

True, but not a big saving really since year 1 is the biggest of the depreciation.

Its not like they are saving 50k every year. Its a few grand at best.

If they do go to the bother of it at least its a new EV on the road each time and its feeding into the 2nd hand market so from that perspective its doing its job at minimal cost.

spyderski

Exactly, but my original point was that there is already this incentive targetted at company users which results in a tax saving of €5-6k in year one, why should they get another incentive (BIK) that's only available to them?

And those figures are based on a €40-50k EV. What about the guy who buys a Model X through his company? Over €20k capital write-off year 1 there already. The BIK saving if it came in would be another €30k. So €50k of government aid in 12 months for a wealthy guy to buy a €200k Tesla. Only the most extreme capitalist would suggest that that's a good, sensible or equitable use of government resources.

Cloudio9

spyderski wrote: »

There's no Issue with it "revenue-wise", its a straightforward 12 month capital write off. The only thing preventing it would be the depreciation figure...

It doesn't make sense as the sale of the car after one year would result in a taxable gain.

Cloudio9

Saw a model X in Kerry over the weekend. Thought it was pretty ugly like something the Koreans would make.

spyderski

I'm in 2 minds about the look of them. If it was just a normal ICE I'd hate it, but they are so cool I think I can overlook the styling.

They're way better finished inside than any Korean thing though...

KCross

spyderski wrote: »

Exactly, but my original point was that there is already this incentive targetted at company users which results in a tax saving of €5-6k in year one, why should they get another incentive (BIK) that's only available to them?

spyderski wrote: »

And those figures are based on a €40-50k EV. What about the guy who buys a Model X through his company? Over €20k capital write-off year 1 there already. The BIK saving if it came in would be another €30k. So €50k of government aid in 12 months for a wealthy guy to buy a €200k Tesla. Only the most extreme capitalist would suggest that that's a good, sensible or equitable use of government resources.

His capital writeoff might seem excessive but his depreciation is horrendous and he is already entitled to claim that capital writeoff anyway as a business expense over 5yrs.

My point back to you is that I doubt the system is being wholesale abused. Revenue can shut it down very quickly if they see that happening. Its serving its purpose of incentivising people to buy EV's. If they sell the car earlier than 5yrs then thats OK, there is another EV on the road.

The BIK saving doesnt have to be fully exempt either. Plenty scope to set that up to stop abuse. I wouldnt rule out BIK incentives in the medium term if they have the effect of bringing more EV's on the road. Like all things you have to see what the costs are and limit those via the rules of the scheme.

I suppose this hasnt anything to do with a Tesla so we should stop!

I generally agree with your point of view... just not in the black and white terms you use.

jimmycrackcorm

Cloudio9 wrote:

Saw a model X in Kerry over the weekend. Thought it was pretty ugly like something the Koreans would make.

It's not too everyone's taste. I watched a video review on YouTube where they skewed misaligned panels also. Off-putting.

listermint

Tesla now bigger than GM by market capitalisation

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-10/tesla-passes-gm-as-musk-s-carmaker-becomes-america-s-top-valued

unkel

Jesus. They only went past Ford a week ago or so. I posted about it here. The biggest US car maker in market cap.

Water John

GM share has hardly moved in 7 years, Tesla has multiplied by 10 but has not made a profit.
Future hope value.

Mc-BigE

Getting back to the BIK thing and EVs, can someone explain how a IT director can "buy a EV every year , hand it back and go again" works?
Is the person not paying BIK for that year because he/she has sold the EV on the 11th month and got another one?
and if a IT director does say less than 23999 business km's a year on say a nissan leaf (€21500)/ hyundai Ioniq (€32000)or in the future the Tesla 3 (assume €45000) (assume model s/x is too expensive), then the 30% BIK of the EV every year you have the car will cost between €9600-13500 every year , plus the deprecation hit every 11 months.these figures just don't add up.
The IT director cant claim mileage expenses anymore on his/her private car , if the revenue can prove their place of work is the company the IT director is contracted to work for, not there home office or business office.
Going slightly off topic here, but to bring it back, if revenue don't reduce the 30% BIK to a more manageable figure or reduce the BIK to reflect the value of the car second hand, then the industry/revenue are missing out on a sector of the workforce (yes there's a lot of directors out there are just workforce, not millionaires! and cant afford 140K cars)  
The EV is a perfect opportunity to get low mileage company car drivers/ IT directors etc out of "dirty diesels" and drive something that helps the environment/EV industry and their own companies balance sheet.

cros13

There's no benefit on the BIK side but a new EV every year can be claimed under Accelerated Capital Allowances against corporate tax by the business.

BIK is an important change to make not just for company car drivers but also to increase availability of more expensive EVs in the 2nd hand market.

cros13

So we have an official date for the opening of the Tesla Service+ location in Sandyford.

April 26th.

Water John

Are you on the invite list, cros?

cros13

I'm away that week unfortunately.

I will be in the store the next week...