3 ms·
Sorry! I also think it's a bad rule, because as a society we should be rewarding you for driving a fuel-efficient car, rather than effectively giving higher ta
by justinsb 12y ago
Sorry!
I also think it's a bad rule, because as a society we should be rewarding you for driving a fuel-efficient car, rather than effectively giving higher tax breaks per mile to those that drive less efficient cars.
- dnautics 12y agoI roll with the punches. Thanks for the info.
- muzz 12y agoGP is being rewarded by saving on fuel-- his cost is only 30c/mile compared to the standard of 55c/mile. He's trying to deduct both his actual costs and the standard cost, which is obviously double-deducting.
- Dylan16807 12y ago> He's trying to deduct both his actual costs and the standard cost, which is obviously double-deducting. What? How do you get double deducting out of this? I only see a desire to deduct 55c/mile. If the actual costs are only 30c, that's not double deducting, that's just having a deduction that's larger than raw costs. Deductions that are larger than raw costs exist all over the place. The concept isn't strange even if this particular rule disallows it. > GP is being rewarded by saving on fuel-- his cost is only 30c/mile compared to the standard of 55c/mile. Except he paid higher up front for that fuel saving. And he pays higher taxes without that deduction.