Cash for Clunkers, 1997 Bentley Continental R

[safeinOhio]

Source: Detroit Freepress





At its creation, a 1997 Bentley Continental R was one of the most powerful and exclusive cars in the world, with every hand-built copy from the English countryside valued at $300,000 and beyond.
A few weeks back, the owner of one such Continental R decided it wasn’t worth more than $4,500, had its engine destroyed and shipped it to a junkyard with the rest of America’s clunkers.
It’s one of several rare or surprisingly new vehicles destroyed under the Obama administration’s cash for clunkers program designed to sweep old gas guzzlers off U.S. roads. According to new government data, the rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 were enough to doom the Continental and a ’97 Aston Martin DB7 Volante that once had a sticker price of $135,000 to the crusher.
And 37 people decided to clunk models that were less than a year old.

Read more: http://freep.com/article/20090923/BUSINESS01/90923004/1322/Exotic-clunkers-also-fueled-recent-program

[No Elephants]

1. Some people really believe in going green.

[safeinOhio]

2. Cash for Clunkers, 1997 Bentley Continental R

Source: Detroit Freepress

At its creation, a 1997 Bentley Continental R was one of the most powerful and exclusive cars in the world, with every hand-built copy from the English countryside valued at $300,000 and beyond.
A few weeks back, the owner of one such Continental R decided it wasn’t worth more than $4,500, had its engine destroyed and shipped it to a junkyard with the rest of America’s clunkers.
It’s one of several rare or surprisingly new vehicles destroyed under the Obama administration’s cash for clunkers program designed to sweep old gas guzzlers off U.S. roads. According to new government data, the rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 were enough to doom the Continental and a ’97 Aston Martin DB7 Volante that once had a sticker price of $135,000 to the crusher.
And 37 people decided to clunk models that were less than a year old.

http://freep.com/article/20090923/BUSINESS01/90923004/1322/Exotic-clunkers-also-fueled-recent-program

Read more: 3/BUSINESS01/90923004/1322/Exotic-clunkers-also-fueled-recent-progra

[leveymg]

3. British cars. Either love 'em or crush 'em.

LUCAS - Lord of Darkness:evilgrin:

[onager]

10. Hey! Triumph Stag owners stand by their cars!

Because they can't get the doors open.

:hi:

I stole that from one of the British books about "The World's Worst Cars."

Somewhere on the Interwebs, I saw a list of the world's worst cars with Yugo at Number One. The write-up mentioned that the U.S. Air Force did a great servive to humanity back in the 1990's - during the Balkan Wars it bombed the Yugo plant and destroyed all the tooling.

[Monk06]

4. I'd like to see the tax filings next year of the two owners that a $295,000 depriciation

on a ten year old Bentley and an equal depreciation
on a ten year old Aston Martin. These cars appreciate
in value with age. The IRS should audit these idiots
for tax fraud.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Individuals in the US can write off depreciation on private cars?

(Or in Canada?) Wow. That's lax.

[happyslug]

12. Only if the vehicle is business related, i,e. a truck or car used exclusively for business

The rule to depreciate a car are quite strict. The Vehicle has had to be used almost exclusively for business NOT pleasure. In fact when some one is given a car to drive by his or her employer as part of her job she or he MUST keep an accounting of what trips they make in the car that is NOT business related and pay taxes on that amount (And the IRS has a set standard which you must use UNLESS you can show you used the car less i.e. you have your own personal car and thus do NOT use the Business car even to go to and from work).

Side Note: Part of the 1947 Taft-Hartley act, included what is called the "Portal to Portal Act", you are NOT on your employer's time until you get to your first job site, even if that is thousands of mile away (unless the employer agrees, most do if it is to far, but NOT if it is within a "Normal" Commute and the latter situation is the case, then if a company car is used. it for personal use which is personal income by the IRS).

Most depreciation of vehicles in the US involve Trucks, farming trucks, delivery vans, construction trucks etc. These may include small trucks if it is "run about" i.e. a car or truck used to pick up small items needed by the business (for example a car used to pick up items needed on a job cite, nails, parts etc). Now Congress did set up a special depreciation program for 1 ton trucks. This program was set up to help farmers who tended to buy 1 ton rated light duty pickups for general use on the farm (And for construction crews who did the same on construction jobs). The Hummer technically came under this program for it was technically a one ton truck AND if you could claim it was used in business you could depreciate its full value from any profits of the business. The term business was liberally defined so many Hummer owners could fit under that definition and take the deduction. If your sole source of Income was wages AND you could not claim you needed a vehicle to get to and from that job, your could NOT take it (But most people in the US could do so, if they could afford a Hummer). This rule is still on the books for small farmer still like the idea of buying a one ton pickup every so often, but with the price of gasoline going to almost $4 a gallon last year the market for Hummers almost died out.

Thus with the sole exception of One ton pickup and the special rules for them (The Small farmers intended to use the deduction tended to have other sources of income thus it was broadly written) unless you can show that the car you purchased was used exclusively for business purposes you can NOT deduct the expense.

Now the IRS does permit a 55 cents a mile deduction from income for any trip that is business related. Now most employers give their employees this as a travel expense if they use their own cars (And most employees do) and as such is NOT taxable under the above IRS Rule. If your travel allowance from your employer is less then 55 cents a mile, you can deduct the difference from your taxes (If you itemize, use the form 1040 AND ALL of your itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction). Most people do not use the form 1040 (Most people use the simpler 1040A and 1040EZ) thus the deduction is NOT taken (For most people the Standard deduction exceeds all of the deductions permitted by the IRS so not worth NOT taking the Standard Deduction).

Just a comment that the US does NOT permit most people to depreciate their vehicles. Some people can, but only if it is income producing related.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. That all makes sense, and seems like the British rules

Thank you.

The previous poster seemed to be saying that this must be tax fraud; and I find it hard to believe you could get away with claiming a Bentley as 'almost exclusively for business NOT pleasure'. From your detailed description, I doubt there was any tax involved in it.

[Blue_Tires]

7. not all cars (even exotics) appreciate in value

they could have grown ratty, been poorly maintained, or just had astronomical service/parts/repair costs...

although my heart does bleed for the rare 1992 Typhoon that was lost, and the even rarer '87 GNX

[safeinOhio]

5. Bentley would have made a great derby car.

[BREMPRO]

8. in the article they fail to mention how this program stimulated the

scrap metal businesses, and recycling. I heard a radio program a few weeks ago that interviewed scrap metal dealers and they were hiring new workers to handle all the business, and were making good money on the scrap metal. trickle down stimulus. Also GM just hired 2400 workers back and i believe other car companies have done the same to replenish inventory of new fuel efficient cars sold during the program. Lets talk about the 2 days a year we don't now have to import foreign oil now because of C for C, and the benefit to the environment. All the skeptics are either working for oil companies and/or republicans. This was a great investment.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. These cars may have gone to scrap yards, but ..

I doubt they met the crusher. Maybe stripped for parts on the used parts market, maybe shipped to another country for sale. I just find it hard to believe any enterprising salvage yard operator would crush a salvageable Bentley or Corvette.

:hi:

[hmorehead]

11. They can have my '74 Jensen Healey when they force it from my dead fingers

'course they may have to have towed. I know I've had it towed many times.

[happyslug]

13. Does it have a tree growing in it???

I was involved in a case involving the value of a 1973 Cadillac. This involved Public Welfare and whether the then 30 year old Cadillac was worth more then $2000. If is was worth more then $2000 the owner was NOT eligible for Food Stamps, if it was worth less then $2000 he could get Food Stamps. If it was worth less then $250 he could get the Pennsylvania Welfare grant of $174 a month (Pennsylvania welfare grant varies from county to county, Cambria County, Major city Johnstown PA, the grant for one person is $174, Allegheny County, County Seat is Pittsburgh, is $206 and Philadelphia County get a whopping $226 per month for one person).

Kelly blue book (and all other blue books) only goes back 25 years so I could not find a blue book value for it. Welfare decided to use a collector's book for old cars and valued it at $6000. That is after it was shown that a tree was growing in it, where the engine use to be. Welfare said that was the only price they could find for the vehicle and that what they were going to use. It was on a piece of property in the Mountains of Pennsylvania that had been striped mined BEFORE the passing of mandatory reclamation laws so the land was worthless (and we had tax records to show that). The Applicant had no other source of income, but Welfare was demanding that that he either sell the car OR get an estimate from someone in the field (i.e. a junk yard) that the vehicle was worthless.

Welfare was hanging their hat on the fact that the Cadillac was still titled to the Applicant. Welfare had access to the Department of Motor Vehicles records and found that the Cadillac was still titled to the Applicant (it has not been licensed or insured for over 20 years but that was unimportant to welfare). The Applicant's word that the Cadillac was worthless was NOT good enough for Welfare. The fact the Cadillac had not been registered or license for 20 years was not good enough. The fact that the Cadillac had no engine was not good enough. The tree was not even a factor. All welfare wanted to look at was paperwork. The Cadillac was registered in the applicant's name and, the only source for pricing of a car that old was a collector's book and thus what the Collector's book said was the value of the Car was the Value of the Car UNLESS the Applicant could get a written estimate otherwise. That was all the paper work Welfare had or needed. The pictures, testimony or other facts were not factors. The fact that the Applicant had been on welfare for 20 years was also unimportant. In addition that fact he had no money to get an estimate was also not a factor. That he had been on welfare on welfare for 20 years was NOT a factor even to the issue of requiring him to pay for an estimate (remember he only received $174 a month from welfare). How can a person on $174 a month (and that was being denied to him till he had the estimate done) pay someone to give him an estimate as to the valuation of a worthless car? Welfare answer was simple, that was NOT their problem he had a $6000 engine-less, rusted with a tree growing through it Cadillac.

Sorry, you bringing up a 1974 car just reminded my of that 1973 Cadillac and its valuation for purposes of Welfare.

[Doremus]

15. Why didn't he have a recycler or junkyard come and haul it away? nt

[happyslug]

19. Didn't have the money to haul it away.

Given its location none of the local junkyard wanted to haul it away UNLESS THEY WERE PAID. They determined that given the work to move the car onto a flatbed and then haul it was would barely pay for the gasoline on the truck, thus no one wanted it. I told him to try it, but no one wanted to haul it away unless paid to do so, in fact the estimate he later submitted to welfare was the cost to haul it away NOT any bid on the Cadillac even as junk.

[hmorehead]

21. I have driven it, looking for carburaters or at least rebuildable ones.

the back one drips gas over the starter ans immolation is not a pleasant thought.

[704wipes]

25. if the tree was a Walnut tree and fairly decent sized

the welfare client could have sold it to a walnut wood buyer, had the money for the estimate and some spare pocket change to boot.

[Psephos]

16. With the Lotus-derived engine...

I'm sure it's no picnic to maintain, but that car's an underrated sleeper. I'd love to have one.

[hmorehead]

22. I love this car. The carbs are a bit pproblematic.

It handles well at high speeds and corners amazingly. But carbs are a bit problematic.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

24. I'll take that clunker

If I had a junkyard, the Healey might not meet the crusher. Any electrical component with the name "Lucas" on it, well, that's a different story.

:hi:

[LynneSin]

17. If I was the dealer I would have given them $4500 rebate out of my own pocket

and claimed the fancy Bentley for myself.

[Raine]

20. Boy, me too

I would've loved to have had that car.

[Romulox]

18. C4C = bizarre, ill conceived. nt

[flvegan]

23. Screw the Bentley. There's an '87 GNx on that list.

And how the hell is an '06 Roush F150 even paid for by now?

[B3Nut]

26. The GNX was a tragedy. They only made 547 or so of them!

Not exactly something someone would use as a daily driver. Oh well...looks like the value of the remaining ones just went up a bit. And I can't quite see how a Porsche 944 could be a guzzler...I don't remember them being that thirsty. I've heard of people getting ~30mpg highway out of them, if not hot-dogging (of course, it'd be hard to resist the temptation to drive harder than one might usually drive...hehehe!) Most 4-bangers are pretty efficient in normal driving...maybe later ones were worse but the '85 and thereabouts wasn't too bad IIRC. I'd love one to take out on a sunny Saturday for a little jaunt...

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[durablend]

27. That data looks suspect

If anyone has the whole list of submitted cars, there are a whole bunch that definitely wouldn't qualify under the guise of EPA gas mileage. There's several hundred 3rd generation Ford Escorts in the submitted clunker list (these would be 1997+) and those definitely had higher EPA ratings than the guidelines were supposed to allow.