the loons are eating it up as TSLA is up again today but at least not really much more than the markets
they supposedly sold about 6 model X. That does not leave all that many Model S needed to reach the new lowered guidance
are you a lonely person. It seems as if you respond to your own messages as many times as all other responses you get. We do feel sorry for you
SLOW pickup of model X sales. I thought it was NO pickup of sales for Model X Come to think of it, Model X is not a "pickup" at all. It is a "thing". Oh VW had one of them in history too.
looks like driving with ap is more complicated than basic driving. You not only have to watch as you normally would but you have to be on guard for AP to do something stupid and unexpected just because there is no longer consistent paint along edge of the road. Wait till one of those sudden swerves back into traffic is in the path of a huge truck. I only hope none of you betas become injured in this wild sci fi experiment. I also hope no one around here is foolish enough to use it when I am trying to drive normally a highway near me.
Aristocrat How much Kool Aid did you drink. You need a strong antidote if you have any chance of recovery. The Section 179 tax deduction (accelerated depreciation and not in addition to what you would otherwise get over time with a different vehicle weighing less) still cost money to buy. It is not a credit or rebate. The newspaper people who are touting this story (seems like they are handing it around to everyone who will publish it) must not understand tax law and you are to be included in that description. Car (if you can get one, especially at $100k) still costs original price minus only the rebates and credits. Plain and simple. Since none of the X are available (at least not before year end when you would claim the depreciation deduction) and orders are a year or so out, the article is even more silly.
immediate write off of certain vehicles is not limited to electric ones. That article is a bit misleading in that any other similarly heavy vehicle would qualify. One does not have to buy a limited range EV to qualify for quick tax write off. You can buy a gas / diesel powered vehicle and actually go where you want. Money is still spent to buy the vehicles eligible for Section 179. Section 179 is not a special cash back credit as some of those bonus offers are.
I am surprised the tire did not go flat if that one was on the car when the axle separated. I know some of the technical information and parts on TSLA are unique but would think suspension parts would be similar in design and functionality (and reliability) to other luxury cars such as MB, BMW, Lexus, etc. Do their wheels fall off that frequently. Remember there are only a few of these cars out there (in comparison to mainstream luxury cars) so virtually none of them should have wheels that fall off.
very interesting. That one 2013 Mercedes AWD sedan was only hit in the back and supposedly has $35,000 in damage. WOW!!! Must have done lots of rear end driveline damage when hit hard from back
If that much damage was done to the body of that Mercedes, the 3 wheel TESLA must have much more damage than the COpart site implies. I still cannot figure why TESLA did not have to fix that broken wheel / axle deal under warranty. We assume it simply broke and was not part of an "accident" as the Mercedes was. I know the TESLA door and side has some dents / scraping but assume that came after the wheel fell off and was not part of a sideswipe deal that caused the TSLA axle to separate. There must be more to that TSLA story when meets the eye or we are being told. Really is suspicious as an insurance company would not pay for an expensive car (totaled for example) and then sell it at auction through Copart if there is warranty opportunity. TSLA would not likely sell it through Copart either as they would either part it out for surplus parts or fix it and sell it themselves as a reconditioned model. We need a good Sherlock Holmes to dig into this one deeper and report back to us.
would that repair not be covered by warranty due to low miles and no reason for it to break so soon. Whey did the factory not get it back to fix instead of it going to Copart. Does anyone know.
Thank you for your comments. The concept of taxing sale proceeds from liquidation of MLP holdings in an IRA has never come across my desk before with all the years of investing in them. Especially in light of the fact the KMP tax people had no idea why the sale of KMP shares would be taxable. They said Pershing was the only clearing firm they were aware of which takes that position. Will be interesting considering MLP sales in the past have not been treated this way or any others I am aware of at Pershing for 2014 in open market. It seems as if the merger of KMP into KMI triggered some sort of strange reaction by Pershing that had not been implemented before.
Thank you. The person in question not only asked Pershing not to withhold tax for UBTI on sale proceeds of her KMP shares sold in August 2014, but had an tax attorney put them on notice of perceived error on their part. They refused to make any change except to say they will have their legal team look into it. My advise is that I had not seen any other IRA held MLP shares in prior history being taxed on proceeds / gain as UBTI. No one has explained to me why this KMP sale in open market is suddenly different. On cannot make this stuff up.
Thank you swan46. I understand UBTI for what is reported on teh K-1 from company. I had never run into sale proceeds (gain I assume) being taxed as UBTI when sale took place in open markt. MLP have been around for a number of years and I have never run into this before the KMP / KMI deal and this friend did not even sell her shares into the merger. She sold in open market. KMP said Pershing is only firm taking same position this year but wanted to gauge experience the rest of you are seeing from various clearing firms. Pershing never gave detail of the calculation of tax for 990-t. I used to get notice letters from clearing firm (I will guess it was NFS) announcing a taxpayer might be subject to the tax but if you had losses from that entity in prior years, you could submit the K-1 detail and they would offset the old UBTI loss against gain. Never had a problem to deal with until now and Pershing is holier than thou about it in spite of what I shared with them about what KMP people said.
Thank you epholder
I understand about UBTI on Schedule K-1 and possible tax implications in the IRA. However, the KMP incident with Pershing has to do with open market sale proceeds in August 2014 and not from business operations. I have never seen a sale of MLP interest in an IRA cause 990-T filing (and tax liability) in and of itself. Friend only had about $200 of UBTI for KMP on theh actual KMP issued K-1 for 2014. If that sale is suddenly subject to IRS tax under UBTI rules, then every sale of an MLP in an IRA since the beginning of MLP would be similarly affected.
A friend had shares of KMP in a Pershing IRA account before the merger. We understand UBTI on the K-1 for operational numbers might be a tax impact. Friend sold her shares of KMP in open market about 3 months before merger of KMP to KMI was completed. Pershing is taking the position that part of gain on KMP sale (even in the open market and not part of the merger) is subject to UBTI surtax and plans to deduct cash from her Pershing IRA account next week. She has protested that other MLP sales (for KMP or other MLP) in open market were never treated like this for tax reporting on Form 990-T.
Have any of you experienced this new rule from Pershing or another clearing firm (on KMP or any MLP)? If Pershing is right about gain from sale of MLP in an IRA being subject to UBTI (and not just the UBTI amount on the K-1), then every MLP trade in an IRA with a gain since MLP's first were used would have been subject to same treatment. I spoke with the folks who do K-1 for KMP several times. They said Pershing is the only firm taking this weird position and do not know how sale of KMP units are suddenly subject to UBTI. Would appreciate any comments about your experience in this area as to whether your clearing firm is doing the same, not treating sale proceeds as partially subject to UBTI, etc Pershing takes the position they are always right and that nothing the friend has offered as an explanation seems to sway their stubborn and unexpected position.