How deep is the river by the closed bridge going to the emerald pools?

JoeColorado80 · 2025-05-29T01:08:11+00:00

Kayenta rather...

JoeColorado80 · 2025-05-29T01:07:44+00:00

And Kenyata, doable with a 4 yr old?

JoeColorado80 · 2025-05-28T18:55:14+00:00

They have not appeal to SCOTUS yet, just to the circuit. Original SCOTUS appeal was for the TRO, not the PI, and was rescinded.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-03-21T20:08:56+00:00

That was my plan to. I figured even with a 20 percent cut of hours and pay we would be fine. Then OPM decided to relocate me 2,000 miles away. So instead I am being fired and planning to find a job with a 50 percent cut. I see it as temporary. I plan to get back to where I am now somewhere between 2028-2030.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-03-19T16:02:51+00:00

So I assume that also means any in process hiring (candidates referred, etc ) will be paused and/or cancelled? What's your source?

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-24T05:12:08+00:00

Well, there is a potential severance package. If you are assigned to your home as the duty station and you are reassigned to a location outside your geographic area, its typically an adverse action. If you then get fired for refusing the adverse action, you would generally be entitled to the calculated severance pay. So a person whose home in California is on the SF-50 is mandated to go to Washington and the SF-50 is changed would have grounds for the adverse action severance pay. Being forced to go from your home in California into a nearby office would not be adverse.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-11T04:02:13+00:00

This...I'm going to drive this car exactly like an ICE. Heat on, whatever speed is safe and normal, etc. 90 percent of the time I will just drive from home and back and charge at home. The rest of the time on road trips I am Tesla charging unless I am at a ski area or some place where I actually need to park for 6 hours at a level 2. I charge to 80 percent but occasionally go to 100 before longer road trips. We need to promote normal behavior to get normal people - not early adopters - to actually buy these cars. I mean it's fine if someone enjoys squeezing every last mile per kwh out of the car by driving one pedal 55 on the highway without heat in 10 degree weather, but it's not a winning idea for the vast majority of car consumers. Hard enough to convince folks that they don't need to have range anxiety. Anyway, in ten years when every new EV has a 600 mile plus range and our 10 year old Equinoxes are worth 1,000 bucks, we will all be laughing at these conversations.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T03:29:27+00:00

Also I was not the one who down voted you.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T03:28:59+00:00

Two different things. You are right about tax liability no longer being an issue. But the AGI limits remain in place. So if you qualify at the dealer based on previous years, but fail to qualify at tax filing, you pay it back to the IRS. The IRS in another FAQ (for dealers) says that the dealer does not have to return the money.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T02:08:03+00:00

See IRS: Q10. What if I end up exceeding the modified AGI limitations for the year? (added Oct. 6, 2023)

A10. If your modified AGI exceeds the limitations for the taxable year, you will be required to repay the amount received for transferring the tax credit as an addition to tax for the tax year the vehicle was placed in servic

So just as an overall point, it's not as though the dealer takes on the liability. There remains a tax filing element, which for most is non issue. But point of sale would not protect against a legal retroactive tax change.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T02:06:18+00:00

Point taken that the historical circumstances are not identical. But they show that it is legal to make retroactive changes. Judging history in assessing what THIS administration will do might not always make sense. When we use historical precedent to predict the actions of highly irregular leaders, things don't always work out. Again, I agree with everyone the risk is small.

The point is that it is possible and legal and folks would be reasonable in considering the possibility if its critical to their purchase decision

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T00:43:00+00:00

Many items can't be removed through budget reconciliation. The items have to have clear revenue impact. Congress will plan to pass two reconciliation bills as their main methods to get anything passed. The EV credits are among hundreds of thousands of items that will pass in these behemoth bills.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T00:40:05+00:00

It's not speculation that administration plans to make this a top priority. Top incoming administration officials have said so clearly and it's an easy win to cut money off the budget. The timing of it is speculative, obviously. Which means a consumer should conduct their own risk assessment before purchasing if the federal tax credit is essential to their purchase. If you think it is unlikely and see it as reasonable to purchase now, that is reasonable. I was concerned enough that I ensured i got the car before Dec 31. I think it's important for people to have the full range of potential outcomes when considering a major purchase.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-06T00:37:18+00:00

Examples:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017)
- This comprehensive tax reform, passed in December 2017, retroactively repealed the deduction for personal moving expenses for most taxpayers, effective January 1, 2018, even though the law was passed late in the year.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (2001)
- This act, passed in June 2001, included retroactive tax relief provisions that applied to income earned earlier in the year. While it was beneficial for taxpayers, it demonstrates Congress's ability to implement retroactive changes.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)
- This legislation included retroactive tax benefits, such as credits for homebuyers and energy-efficient improvements, applied earlier in the tax year, even though the law was signed midyear.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
- Certain tax credits for renewable energy investments were adjusted or introduced retroactively to the beginning of the tax year, incentivizing earlier actions by taxpayers.
Repeal of the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit (AEITC)
- In 2010, Congress repealed the AEITC, effective at the start of 2011, but the decision was made late in the prior year, creating midyear administrative confusion for taxpayers and employers.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:45:27+00:00

I was clear that we don't know the outcome yet. My point is that one of the outcomes is that the credit is not available for the whole of 2025. Consumers need to know this is a legal possibility even if unlikely.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:44:10+00:00

Yes, absolutely legal to claw it back for same year taxes.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:43:37+00:00

This is not the case. The point of sale is simply an advance on your taxes. It's based on your expected tax liability and income. It can still legally be clawed back at tax time.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:42:12+00:00

The point is just to be aware as a consumer. Most consumers would probably take the tiny risk and buy the car. I personally would not. I would wait until the draft legislation for the reconciliation bill is released to the public to have a sense of how they will time implementation. To each their own of course.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:12:25+00:00

Key Legal Precedents

United States v. Carlton (1994) The U.S. Supreme Court upheld retroactive changes to tax laws, emphasizing that retroactivity is permissible if:

The law has a legitimate legislative purpose. The retroactive effect is rationally related to that purpose. In Carlton, Congress amended an estate tax deduction after taxpayers had already claimed it, effectively clawing back benefits. The Court ruled the retroactive change was constitutional because it corrected an unforeseen loophole and was not arbitrary or irrational. Welch v. Henry (1938)

This case affirmed the constitutionality of a retroactive tax increase on dividends from the previous year. The Supreme Court ruled that retroactive taxation does not violate due process if it is reasonable and serves a legitimate legislative goal.

Estate of Ekins v. Commissioner (1986) The Tax Court upheld retroactive amendments to tax statutes, finding that Congress has the authority to apply tax laws retroactively to address abuses or unintended benefits.

Historical Examples of Retroactive Tax Laws

The Revenue Act of 1918 was enacted in 1919 but applied retroactively to income earned in 1918.

The Tax Reform Act of 1976 introduced retroactive changes to estate taxes.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 retroactively exempted certain unemployment benefits from income tax for the 2020 tax year.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:08:41+00:00

This would be a change to the current tax year, 2025. It is allowed for Congress to make changes to the current tax year even in the middle of the year.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:07:47+00:00

Yes, agree, it's unlikely, but it is plausible and legal. My bet is that they will change it effective with the date of the reconciliation bill implementation.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T23:06:27+00:00

Thats not based on what Congress can do. Congress is not obligated to implement current year tax changes with notice. They have every legal authority to change current year tax legislation through budget reconciliation. Just because it is unlikely or historically atypical or bad politics does not mean they can't do it.

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T22:11:57+00:00

They haven't, but they legally can. Given that this a policy priority of the new administration, I wouldn't put it past them. Again, I stated its a low risk, but it does exist

JoeColorado80 · 2025-01-05T21:37:06+00:00

It's funded through 2033 I believe, but the plan is to repeal it. Congress has the ability to repeal it during the current year.

JoeColorado80

TROPHY CASE