03-15-2017, 11:40 AM | #1 |
Lieutenant
242
Rep 535
Posts |
530ie Configurator is up
Been waiting for this. Interesting that the base price is almost the same as for 530i, and there is a big Fed Tax credit.
|
03-16-2017, 09:55 AM | #3 |
Lieutenant
242
Rep 535
Posts |
^^^ Agree. When you run the lease numbers on the configurator, the 530e is remarkably more expensive than the 530i, despite the MSRP being almost the same. One reason is that the tax credits are not taken. The IRS bulletin on the tax credits is as of Nov 2016 and the 530e is not listed with an amount. I suspect that BMW is waiting for the 530e to be added to that list before they will schedule the credits. But, I think the other is that the residual for the 530e is lower than the 530i. And, when you factor in the "special" lease being available thru 3/31/2017 (because, I suspect a highly inflated residual), the 530e simply cannot compete. If BMW is desiring to increase their CAFE numbers with the 530e, this will have to change.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-16-2017, 10:11 AM | #4 |
Second Lieutenant
49
Rep 201
Posts |
Yea, the IRS bulletin is just outdated. I read through the actual law wording and they would get the same credit as the 740e, about $4.6k, so they shouldn't care whether or not the IRS has updated their site...unless of course the repeal of certain federal EPA incentives happens before the 2017 tax year is up and they can't get the credit, I wonder if that's part of their concern.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-17-2017, 02:57 PM | #5 |
Lieutenant
242
Rep 535
Posts |
Not a valid reason. The credits are enshrined in Legislation and if the Rule spelling out how the credits are to be administered were to be rescinded or changed, a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" would have to be published, followed by months of public comments, rewriting et. al. until a final rule were published. The proposed rule could cite a cutoff date earlier than the revised rule being finalized (highly unusual), but denying any credits for any purchases made before that proposed cutoff date would be an "ex post facto" "taking" and unconstitutional. Of course , that hasn't been much of a concern of the current Administration.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|