Seeking to close what they call the Hummer Tax Loophole, four U.S. representatives introduced legislation June 14 that would stop a tax write-off of up to $25,000 for small businesses buying SUVs weighing more than three tons.
“These are vehicles that small business owners across the country depend on for their way of life,” said Charles Territo, of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “This effort is an assault on the hardworking men and women who rely on these types of vehicles for a living.”
Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Ed Markey, Rahm Emanuel, and Allison Schwartz disagree and introduced H.R. 2715, now being considered in the House. The tax code allows small-business tax breaks as legitimate expenses, not luxury write-offs, Blumenauer explains. In 1984, when a 6,000-pound cap was set, three-ton luxury vehicles were rare. Now they aren’t. Revising that weight-cap provision, Blumenauer suggests, means “businesses will no longer have an incentive to buy the biggest, most gas guzzling SUV on the market. Legislative language and regulations would guarantee that the limitation not apply to trucks or vans used for legitimate business purposes.”
AIArchitect Contributing Editor Michael J. Crosbie, AIA, was ahead of that curve when he opined in his 2007 New Year’s Resolutions for architects, item 12:
SUV RIP. Stop driving that ridiculous SUV. An architect should not be caught dead in one of the most environmentally destructive vehicles known to man. Sell it and buy something fuel efficient and less dangerous, and improve your chances of being here in 2008!
What do you think?
(And if you’ve read down this far, you deserve a reward, speaking of Mike Crosbie. Take a look at his article earlier this week on Philip Johnson’s Glass House estate, which just opened as a museum.)
Comments (8)
I strongly agree with Crosbie. SUVs are not justifiable, especially considering how unsuited most are for true business use as a truck. I just wish more loopholes which encourage ecologically poor choices would be closed. Why not have policy that encourages a sustainable lifestyle? It is inevitable... Why not start now?
Posted by W. Scott Anderton, CCS, AIA, CSI | June 22, 2007 11:09 AM
Posted on June 22, 2007 11:09
What a Nazi! Architects should support freedom and individual rights. People can make better decisions for themselves vs. the government (or architects)! The AIA should focus on trying to help architects and not playing politics.
Posted by Steven Gallia AIA | June 22, 2007 1:40 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 13:40
Just another attempt to limit your freedom to choose. Government knows what's best for you - just look at FEMA and the IRS... the pinnacles of government omnipotence.
So, just be quiet and enjoy your government cheese.
Posted by Frederick T. Wawra, AIA | June 22, 2007 1:58 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 13:58
THe tax loophole for oversized trucks and SUVs was a handout to truck mfgrs and to the oil industry framed as a helping hand to small businesses. Since the handout, the oversized vehicles have proliforated at an unbelieveable rate. It is not about freedom to choose as no one is limiting that freedom, it is about eliminating a false tax loophole that promotes and even gives incentives to increase energy consumption and mfgrs profits. Rarely will you see a true small business owner utilizing a very large V8 or V10 or Diesel "duelly" P/U or Excrusion loaded with work related supplies, rather it is usually pulling a boat or oversized camping trailer. As a small business owner you cannot write off the purchase of a smaller more efficient vehicle as fast (2 years or less @ $25,000 per year)that the tax loophole allows for these oversized vehicles. If incentives were made available and/or increased for more efficient vehicles for small business', then watch for a change on the roads. Yes it is about freedom of choice, so level the playing field.
Posted by Lawrence Maxwell, AIA | June 22, 2007 2:26 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 14:26
So I guess Gallia and Wawra are opposed to the government influencing personal choice through tax incentives? Which means they agree that the loophole should be closed?
Posted by Anonymous | June 22, 2007 4:06 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 16:06
You who want hummers, go buy them--not with MY tax money. Bad enough your foolish and selfsih choices drive up gasoline prices and insurance costs when you hit and kill someone when a normal vehicle would only cause damage instead of a fatality.
Take your selfishness and shortsightedness somewhere else. Nazism/fascism is the joining of corporations and government so who's the Nazi now--not us who are exercising our rights in OUR government!
Posted by kim | June 25, 2007 11:13 AM
Posted on June 25, 2007 11:13
To borrow a term from an area talk radio host -- "GovCo" strikes again! Just another fine example of how the liberal cancer spreading in this country will not be satisfied until we can all say, "You can have all the freedoms you want, as long as those freedoms don't conflict with how the socialist, liberal hive-mind wants you to live."
Posted by Mike | June 25, 2007 4:03 PM
Posted on June 25, 2007 16:03
I disagree.it is proven that a 6000 # tahoe is more efficient use of resourses that a prius.
adding up all the facts, including initial costs, logevity / life cycle the tahoe wins. prius pound for pound cost more money to purchase. battery life is only 1 year, expected life of a prius is in the 100 k to 200k mi life span where the tahoe is 250 to 300 k
with all things considered, tahoe is best. the real truth requires full study. just because you drive a prius does not mean much except you want to show off your opinions. I do agree that we should pursue alternate energy sources or clean up our existing ones.
I drive a suburban, and I also have a scooter for the inner city.
PS. your lawn mower causes more pollution than my suburban.
Posted by Anonymous | June 29, 2007 11:53 AM
Posted on June 29, 2007 11:53