Discussion:Sec 179 on mercedes ML350

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Sec 179 on mercedes ML350


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Sec 179 on mercedes ML350

Frank123 (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2010
my client delivers products and uses his "Mercedes ML350" one hundred percent of the time, so he says and says he can support it.

he wants to take a sec 179 expense election of 25k based on the fact that the vehicle is a SUV. I have looked up the vehicle specs and its weight is 4792 pounds, under 6000 pounds. my client says that the inside door shows a GVW of 6235. Which weight is used?

Does this vehicle qualify for sec 179 expense?

thank you.

Jctmstx (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2010
The GVWR on the door is used.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2010
Have a camera handy and ask him to drive it over so you can take a picture of the inside of the door for your file; if you find what he said is true, you can probably believe his 100% of business tale. If not,........???????

Frank123 (talk|edits) said:

5 February 2010
I have looked again and it seems to me that it is the unloaded weight that is relevant?

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

5 February 2010
As is so often the case in "things taxish" the only correct answer is "It depends". It depends on whether this "SUV" is a car or a truck. Look it up in the Code or a publication.
We're not going to hand it to you.  Cuz we don't remember...

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

5 February 2010
Discussion:SUV's_over_6000_pounds_with_Unibody_Contruction


A search box issue found by this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS350&q=suv+ml350+gvw+irs&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
damn, who ever thought of using a search? what a concept!!!!

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
Kevin I know you never need to search, therefore, how do you the benefits and value of research.

Is that a pun? Guess not. Irony?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
no, I search ALL of the time, therefore in the past 3 years I think I have only had to ask 3 or 4 questions.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
Joke joke .....

Taxea (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
I have to agree with Kevin...if you do your own research you remember and learn. If someone else does your research they are merely enabling you.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
So is it a car or a truck? Won't *somebody* look it up for us?

Seaside CPA (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
SUV's & minivans are included in the definition of trucks and vans if they are built on a truck chassis and have an enclosed body. Prop. Reg. 48.4001-1(b)(2)(iii). Gross Vehicle weight for a truck or van is the LOADED vehicle weight. A passenger automobile has an UNLOADED gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or less.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
Please note that SUV and minivans do not have to build on a pure truck frame. This requirement has been removed some years ago.

A fact covered in my link articles.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2010
What I heard was that a 4-wheel vehicle below 6,000 pounds is subject to the luxury auto limits. But the 6,000 pounds is gross weight for a truck and unloaded weight for others vehicles.

Taxea (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
How about ordinary and necessary business expense?? Do we all agree that a courier business requires an MBZ suv to make deliveries?

I know that realtors and attys and drug dealers must make a good impression on clients and frequently drive Volvos, MBZs, Lexus', BMW and the like.....but....a delivery person????? Good one! What is this guy delivering???

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
Glad you asked. There's this court case [name escapes me; some airshipping magnate, IIRC] that points out to us that *depreciation* in IRC section 167 isn't subject to the usual "ordinary and necessary" conditions that apply to Section 162 deductions. I'm just showing off my ability to drink and think and drink and think. Another PBR, howsabout it?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
Harry, that is Noyce ..... a case I always haul out when IRS raises the 162 ordinary and necessary argument also. 97 TC 46 is the cite. Noyce was a founder of Intel who used his private plane.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
Oh, yeah, DT, you know who the taxpayer is, and you *have* to let everybody know that I thought it was some airshipping guy when I was bragging about my startling ability to recall...

Good job, DT, did you look it up or just rattle it off from memory?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
Noyce is a case I know from memory though I often first say 'Royce.'

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
And the citation, 97 TC 46? Have you been taking those memory pills again, DT?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2010
No, I have a collection of cases in a several three-ring notebooks. I have Spiegelman, which was mentioned somewhere here yesterday, and of course, Soliman, and others that hit areas where I get involved.

A bassoonist client of mine went to her own audit without telling me and made a total mess because she was the type woman who never shut up. I secured the auditor's work papers.....the client has bought a $225 humidifier for her music room [she did 7-8K of teaching there, had a piano etc]. She explained she needed it for her instruments. The paragon of an examiner, in her spare time at work, called three music stores in Philly and asked about how to preserve woodwinds. She found that they sold a $15 device you put in instrument case so threw out the deduction as not ordinary and necessary. When I went to appeals, I quoted Noyce something to the effect that the businessman is the final arbiter of what is needed. The Appeals officer agreed and noted after reading other parts that the examiner didn't like Ms. K very much.

Taxea (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2010
So I guess a Mercedes SUV is ordinary and necessary to make deliveries...Darn I just bought a Ford Escape Hybrid for my courier service!!! I cudda had a Mercedes!!!

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools