Washington State Proposes $35,000 Cap On Sales Tax Exemption For Electric Cars


BMW i3 Priced Above $45,000 Cap

BMW i3 Priced Above $45,000 Cap

Tesla Model S Is Way Above $45,000 Cap

Tesla Model S Is Way Above $45,000 Cap

Washington state representative, Chad Magendanz, provided InsideEVs with a heads up regarding the electric car tax exemption situation in Washington:

I just wanted to give everyone a heads up on an unexpected amendment that is now threatening BMW’s eligibility for the sales tax exemption for electric vehicles in Washington state.

For background, our EV sales tax exemption sunsets in July 2015, and our EV Caucus has proposed legislation that would extend it at least 4 more years. Because of perceptions that this tax incentive is inappropriately benefiting wealthy Tesla owners, we’d proposed capping the exemption to the first $45K of the purchase price. That bill (SB 5333, sponsored by Sen. Mullet) is still alive in the Senate, although the cap has been reduced to $40K.

Unfortunately, the House version (HB 2087, sponsored by Rep. Fey) took an unexpected turn on April 1st…and I wish it were a April Fool’s joke. In the House Transportation committee an amendment passed that reduced the cap to $35K and clarified that no sales tax exemption can be claimed if the selling price exceeds that cap.

According to Magendanz, the House version of the bill “basically allows the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt to fully qualify, but the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S get no incentive whatsoever.”

Magendanz has been in contact with InsideEVs in the past and he’s a strong supporter of electric cars.  He actually owns a BMW i3 REx.

Here’s a link to the summary of the bill

And some additional words from Magendanz:

“I understand that Tesla will be here on Monday to lobby against this change, but I thought that all the local BMW i3 owners might also want to weigh in. Frankly, the selling price of a Tesla won’t make the argument nearly as well as BMW, who has a mainstream offering at $41K MSRP. In addition, BMW has a very visible presence in Washington through its joint venture with SGL that will soon make the Moses Lake plant the largest carbon fiber manufacturing facility on the planet.”

We wonder, should there be a price cap at all?

Categories: BMW, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

81 Comments on "Washington State Proposes $35,000 Cap On Sales Tax Exemption For Electric Cars"

newest oldest most voted

Why don’t they just exempt the first $35,000 of all vehicles? Let the Teslas and BMWs pay taxes on everything OVER $35,000.

BTW… a 2015 Leaf SL Premium has an MSRP over $35,000

So… I guess it’s a good thing that the iMiev and base model Leaf with QC will come in uunder the limit… sure does sound like it is motivated by the ALEC and Koch Bros Big Oil and NADA creeps alliance.

Koch Bros? Rep Fey is a democrat.

So Fey sounds like a typical modern-Democrat politician … one that would rather punish the wealthy than promote the EV industry.

This amendment was NOT in Rep. Fey’s original bill. It was amended in committee.

Keep an open mind–http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_ALEC_Politicians

Oh, come on. Keep the polarizing political rants out of this. There’s plenty of common ground here that can benefit wealthy, not-so-wealthy, Democrat and Republican alike.

So what are your suggestions on moving this forward?

We should really just be taxing the living cr*p out of gasoline, so that EV incentives are not necessary, and there remains an incentive to ride a bike or take public transit. But I understand that can’t happen in the US.

WA has one the highest gas taxes

I heard on the radio that there is a 12 cent proposed gas tax increase in Washington state (proposed, oddly enough, by Republicans).

The original bill was like that. You got taxed for the cost above 40K. So for a base Model S you’d be taxed on maybe 35K of car.

That’s actually reasonable.

The House version is the problem. You are fully exempt at 34,999 and you pay tax on the whole amount at 35,001. This isn’t just bad policy, it’s an idiotic way to formulate bad policy.

Absolutely correct.

That is good graduated thinking.

Something politicians rarely do.

Three levels of taxation should exist.
1) $30K 1% sales tax
2) $45K 3% sales tax
3) above 6% sales tax

That pushes main automakers to get under the magic “sticker price” of $30K. Then the semi-luxury plugin makers under $45K and then finally, taxation above.

Some will say “hey, luxury tax!” – well in fact that is true – those selling car at those higher prices even call them luxury cars. ELR is a luxury Volt. Tesla is a luxury large electric sedan. You don’t need a Tesla to go luxury.

But I do believe that EREVs may end up being fully taxed and that is an incentive to try to make more BEVs – even though an EREV surely can be someone’s 95% electric-mile vehicle with 5% out of town trips.

Sounds good to me.

All or NONE! They Will loose too much $$$ if they allow Everybody the 1st $35,000…L M A 0

You’re going to lose your dog if you don’t fix that loose collar.

Sorry, loose use drives me crazy.

Are they going to do annual exemptions based on the “donations” of the previous year? So much of government operates just a hair away from mobster-like bribery, it makes me sick.

Sounds like a Senate vs House issue that is still under negotiation.

No conclusion here yet….

Agreed, could be a negotiating tactic, trading the dropping of the hard cap in exchange for accepting the lower limit.

Yup, the scene @Olympia has been ugly for the past 4 years, and the horse-trading and hostage-taking pretty ridiculous most of the time. As Steve wrote in his other post today, this is a legislature that’s been in explicit contempt of its own state supreme court for years, for failing to provide adequate K-12 education funding as decreed in the state constitution. The main reason is that timber sales, which used to be the easy funding source for education (talk about pitting kids’ future against… well, their future), have been falling, and no one with the political will to institute a state sales tax has gone past first base with such initiatives. It’s easy to blame Republicans who’ve held narrow control of the Senate since 2011, but the truth is the Democrats (as happens on the national stage too) are not really willing to stand up and fight, not least b/c some of them are very diluted versions of the brand. In short, us EV folks can be frustrated, but at least you know, we can get our own EVs one way or another, maybe a cheaper one than planned, while K-12 kids are just shafted with lousy education funding,… Read more »

Ironic. Depletion of a natural resource (lumber) is causing a backstep in support for a vehicle that reduces the depletion of another natural resource (oil).

LOL. Beloved gubment taking away benefits again. Enjoy your crumbs.

This new law proposal sounds perfectly fair to me in that they could let the tax credit sunset this summer.

It’s significant to note that the $35k limit would exclude the Chevy Bolt as well.

Not really in that if the car companies see that someone can get a few thousand dollars in tax credits by having the car being a little cheaper they will cut the prices. I really think this will motivate them to cut their prices.

But the way EV makers (other than Tesla) have been limiting the price of EVs is by using small battery packs, thus limiting the appeal and keeping the EV revolution locked into the “early adopter” phase.

Wider acceptance of EVs will only come with EVs (both BEVs and PHEVs) with larger battery packs, which means higher prices.

Putting a cap on the rebate makes sense. Saying “If the purchase price is one dollar over the cap, no soup for you!” is not merely counter-productive, it’s stupid fiscal policy.

Prosperous and increasing in production of EVs are trimming off Gasoline profit therefore, they have to lobby to slow down the EV revolution. Let the free markets fight and everybody will benefit. There will be time these incentives disappear.

I support a hard cap for tax incentives. I think the federal tax credit should also be hard capped somewhere in the 30k range (along with increasing the max credit to 10k, and making the credit fully refundable). By establishing a hard cap, that would force manufacturers to hit a certain price point (be it 34,999 or 29,999…whatever). Right now they don’t have much incentive to hit a particular target for MSRP, except for satisfying their own internal targets.

Plus limiting credits is a lot more appealing than eliminating them altogether, don’t you think?

Not really. Don’t take it the wrong way – I personally would love to see a whole lot more affordable EVs available in the US market.

The problem with your proposal is the assumption that EV production is very low – so low that manufacturers can hit the price point of $30K or less, AND make a profit concurrently.

What if they can’t – say, with the current battery size/standard equipment available, let alone future EVs with larger battery pack/more range, and MORE safety mandated features?

If that means everyone will end up having Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Smart EV, and the barebone LEAF, is that sustainable for the EV markets?

That will be my concern.

bro — you need to read Tesla’s business plan. What you are suggesting is a direct recipe for putting the reputation of EV’s right back to being slow, cheap, punishment cars that nobody would be caught dead owning.

The future of EV’s relies just as much in convincing Americans that it is OK to be seen in an EV as does the success of any other car in the US. Part of that is bad-ass EV’s that not everybody can afford. The term in the automotive world is “Halo Car”.

Cheap cars are great. That’s why incentives work. But cramming the EV market down to just cheap cars is bad for the industry.

And what percentage of Tesla owners do you think made their purchase decision based on tax incentives?

This is madness. You might be able to argue for the Model 3 as tax-credit-influenced, but no one is buying a $90,000 car* and thinking, “Man, I’m glad I got it for $82,500 after credit, otherwise this would be just too expensive.”

*average Model S selling price

Given the number of Tesla Model S owners who say this is by far the most expensive car they’ve ever bought, far out of their normal price range, I’d say the percentage for whom the tax rebate was enough to push them over the edge from a “No” to a “Yes” on buying the car, is a much greater percentage than the norm for luxury sedan buyers.

I agree. Before Tesla I would never have even considered a $90k car, but now I dream about it and the $7500 tax credit and the $9k WA sales tax exemption tempt me to do it. Not all Tesla buyers are millionaires.
I’m For the Senate wording. I wish PHEVs like the Volt qualified too. I Drive >80% electric in mine.

To be fair, I asked about the number of Tesla owners, not the people who would really like to have one. I consider myself in the category of the latter, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go buy a car that has a bigger monthly payment than my mortgage.

Again, given that the average Model S is optioned up $20k from the base, the idea that a significant portion of these buyers are middle-class citizens saving their pennies to afford the car is rather incredible (as in, not credible).

Dan — Maybe you should get the answer to that question before backing getting rid of the incentives.

I purchased a Model S because of the Incentives. I would have either bought something cheaper or drove my previous car until the wheels fell off if the federal and state incentives weren’t available. I definitely wouldn’t have spent so much on a car if a cheaper EV that could serve as my primary car was on the market. But there was nothing else on the market at the time that could go on road trips and haul enough people and cargo. And there still isn’t. If the goal is to have people drive fewer miles powered by gasoline, limiting incentives to cars that don’t have capabilities at least somewhat close to mainstream cars is not a good way to proceed,

Mind if I ask the pre-credits sticker price of your Model S after options?

Given the average selling price of that car, it’s difficult to believe that there is significant number of people who add $20k in options but wouldn’t buy the car if they didn’t get <$10k in credits.

Sticker price was 86 k (I reserved in late 2012 prior to the price increases). 76k after state and federal incentives. i agonized over the options- the upgraded sound and blue metallic paint were the only options that werent really a must have, but they were each $750 at the time IIRC. The 85 kwh battery was a must have to be able to make it to my parents place, the air suspension was needed for our steep driveway, the tech package was needed for nav and keyless entry, and at the time you had to get the leather seats to get the seat memory function. I almost bailed when they announced the $2,500 price increase, but my wife (who wanted to drive the car one or two days a week) convinced me to put down the deposit prior to the price increase and see how the stock market did.

In addition, average selling price isn’t a very good metric. At least in the early days things were bi modal- people tended to either get the fully loaded version or they got minimal options because the base car was at the top of their budget.

If by hard cap you mean all-or-nothing at the limit of the cap, then no, I don’t agree at all. Any credit should be formulated on the first $X amount, be it 30K, 40K, whatever. You should not be punished for adding that winter package if you need it, or spending more money on a safety option.
Attempting to force manufacturers to reach a price point this way is not a good idea. Manufacturers do everything they can to slash costs already. EV profitability is already lower than ICE; you don’t want that to be even worse, or what you will see is lack of interest, aging models, few options, etc.
Incentives should work >with< market forces, not against them.

Not if you’re looking for Benefits of that tax credit.
Because, the TESLA replaces real guzzlers: Jags, and Big MB and Audi’s.

If your looking for: lower pollution, lower gas demand, and energy independence then the bigger the car that qualifies the bigger the benefit to society.

Of course, as we’ve seen, Repubs don’t really want “energy independence” unless it’s a tarsand pipeline. Nothing else qualified, in their mind.

I wish it would motivate them to make the cars smaller, and more aerodynamic.

The state, and federal governments could have forced people into the cellphone phase of personal mobility, with huge rebates for small, aero cars, if they had indexed money to efficiency. Instead they caved to our desire for wretched excess, and rewarded big battery packs.

Nobody is stopping you from buying an e-bike (electric bicycle), which appears to fit your criteria for an EV. They’re very popular in third world countries. But living poor out of choice, rather than by necessity, isn’t a very popular idea in -any- country.

It is true, few. But, isn’t that a worthwhile goal: to use less, be more efficient, strive to have happiness and fulfillment without buying expensive stuff and imbibing at the font of, what William Kemp calls, the myth of infinite mobility?

Also, EVs are currently dependent upon cheap electricity (and limited public transportation). Electricity isn’t going to be cheap forever and if we’re smart we’ll build even more efficient forms of public transportation. (Both of these factor have constrained EV sales in Europe, for example.)

Finally, I like Dr. Strange’s sentiments: we should tax the living cr@p out of gasoline.

I did just that. I built an electric assist recumbent bicycle. Next week will mark three and a half years, almost 18K miles, of range anxiety free riding. My bike will go over 100 miles on 1 kWh of electricity…over 3000 MPGe. My average ride length is 44 miles, but fully a third have been 80-100 miles. I am an old man. If I can do it, most people can. YES WE CAN!

If you want a battery golf cart buy one…a BEV is not a golf cart.


Ho much you wanna bet these efforts to put a cap on the incentives has deep roots to NADA.
Ironically in most cases Tesla is the most affected and the others are “casualties of war”.

The proper fix is to allow EVERYONE the incentives, not just the rich.

Setting a price caps shows you have Tesla in the cross hairs.

Conservatives never met a tax increase they like or a tax cut they didn’t like until it comes to EV’s. Note how fast $50 or $100 registrations fees for EV’s have passed, or how universally tax credits for EV’s are under attack. It’s where the rubber of dogma meets the road of partisan hatred. The arguement of “but we have to pay for road maintenance” or any other government function never applies to any other tax situation with them but suddenly finds relevance when it’s something the other side wants.

Bill is sponsered by a Dem.

Political party doesn’t give this policy cover, period. Conservative Dem or Republican.

Sure it does. Look at the makeup of the committee that amended the Bill. Majority Dems. The original poster simply has no support for his assertion that conservatives are behind the bill or the amendment.

The original bill was sponsored by a Democrat, but it was amended into it’s current perverted form in the House by the Committee. Not the same bill as was initially sponsored.

This isn’t a mistake, or a joke, it is part of a nationwide push to crush any and all green anything incentives, tax credits, etc.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody who read the Congress’s FY2016 Budget Resolution which calls for the immediate elimination of all production and sales incentives for green cars and green power generation.

They are trying to kill green everything through all means necessary. If anybody thinks this is about deciding whether taxes are applied to one car or another, don’t kid yourself. A decent percentage of those very expensive Mercedes and BMW gas cars you see CEO’s and other highly compensated individuals driving around are company cars where the company gets a big tax deduction for that expense. A $100K Mercedes gives a company a cool $35,000 dollar tax reduction.

So if anybody pretends this is about not giving tax cuts to wealthy people buying expensive cars, realize they are full of it.

You’ve got it exactly backwards.

By limiting tax credits to lower-priced cars, you make the tax credit go a longer way (in the sense of more people getting to benefit from it), instead of the ultra-wealthy consuming most of the benefit during the early adopter stage followed by a program sunset before the mass-market EVs can take off.

You’re ignoring the fact that the -purpose- of tax incentives and rebates for buyers of EVs is to stimulate the development of EVs which can actually compete with gas guzzlers without -needing- any rebate or tax incentive.

Limiting the market to cheap, low-range EVs is -not- the way to stimulate the EV revolution. In fact, the effect would be market pressure causing the EV revolution to stay locked into the early adopter phase, as it currently is (other than the Tesla Model S).


If you want to benefit from the tax incentive that somebody who makes more money than you got for buy a new EV, buy their used EV. Right now the vast majority of the EV tax incentive is being passed on to second owners.

It is working just fine.

If you’re worried about people who are so wealthy that the tax credit wasn’t an incentive for them to make the purchase then limit it by income rather than the price of the car.

FYI – The house bill also includes used EV’s up to four years old to also receive the sales tax exemption up to 35k too. I would prefer 40k be used and the house bill would be the best option. I’m just excited that the state is supporting this exemption at all. Unlike GA right now.

“In the House Transportation committee an amendment passed that reduced the cap to $35K and clarified that no sales tax exemption can be claimed if the selling price exceeds that cap.”

Apparently the Big Oil lobby is alive and well in Washington State.

Nothing wrong with putting a cap on an EV tax rebate — yes, any rebate that’s figured as a percentage of the amount of taxes you owe does benefit the rich more than the poor. But saying “No soup for you” if the selling price is a penny above the cap seems to be intended to sabotage the entire program of pushing the EV revolution with State subsidies. And of course, fight against the very real threat the EV revolution poses to Big Oil.

One thing about this whole debate is if they start writing taxes on green vehicles, they are (in a way) legislating that climate change is not as big a deal as some say. Why tear down Coal power plants when we now start dis-incentivizing electric vehicles. By taxing and making EVs harder to buy – isn’t that the government saying “we want to legislate through the EPA what we want and then also we want to tax other things that we need to tax because our other constituents call for it…”

Government is really going to screw up the whole EV marketplace, eventually – and already has the loss of Solar PV tax credits lined up for next year.

Hey, look they have us successfully turned against each other.

Exactly what they want.

The representative say the bill “basically allows the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt to fully qualify, but the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S get no incentive whatsoever.” This is incorrect. There is no tax incentive in Washington state for the Volt…the tax incentive is for battery EV’s only, and excludes the Volt already. (I am a Wash. state resident, and this is in part why I purchased a Leaf over a Volt.) Rep. Magendanz may be an EV advocate, but in this case he has his facts wrong. See http://www.chevrolet.com/chevy-volt-electric-car-tax-credit.html

Does any PHEV get a credit, or is it only BEVs? What about a BMW i3 REx?

i3 Rex gets it because Megandez sponsored a bill to qualify it just before he bought one. He couldn’t be bothered to include the Volt though sarc

The Volt is being consider in the current WA debate.

Note; a hard-cap will exclude the Bolt and every EV with more than 30 kWh capacity.

Perhaps WA should only include the Volt if offered with a 2 gallon gas tank like the i3?

(joking of course re: Volt, but effectively that’s the effect of a hard-cap on PEVs)

so incentives do drive consumer behavior

if you could have gotten the tax exemption for the Volt,
would you have bought a Volt over the Leaf?
Besides the end price what other factors drove your decision?

If the tax incentive had been in place for the Volt it would certainly have leveled the playing field. I seriously considered both Volt and Leaf, and the tax incentive was definitely one (but not the only) factor in choosing the Leaf.

The other main factors that drove my decision were also incentive related. I purchased in Dec. 2014, after leasing a 2012 Leaf for 2 years. The 2 year lease allowed me to determine that the Leaf’s range would not be an issue for me. The other factors that strongly influenced the purchase were all incentive related as well. The Leaf I purchased in Dec. 2014 was a 2013 model, which was eligible for a $7500 factory to dealer incentive to move old stock off the lot. Since I was returning in the 2012 Leaf, I was eligible for a $1000 Nissan owner loyalty incentive. No Washington State sales tax was important, and the $7500 Federal tax incentive was also a big factor in the decision. The car is an “S” model with QC, and after incentives the cost came to about $13,500. My goal has been to buy the “affordable” Tesla when it comes out. My wife will be replacing her 2002 Jetta in the next few years, and I could see the new Gen. Volt as a fine choice for her. I’m sure the state sales tax incentive would only enhance the Volt’s attraction.

you got the Leaf for far less then you could have gotten a Volt, the most Chevy has offered on the 2014 Volts was a $1000 rebate. I got my Volt with factory 1k rebate, dealer discount 5k (the price of gas goes down so do Volt sales in Texas, he really wanted to move the car) , fed 7.5K, state 2.5 k and taxes for $24,500. Not bad for a well equipped Volt.
I had an iMev on lease for 2 yrs before the Volt. When I went to return it they wanted 25K to buy it! They had a new iMev on the lot for 24K! The new iMev after fed and state would have been 14K which was very tempting.
I liked the iMev but found many occasions with not enough range and not enough time to recharge.
The iMev was enough to convince me I need the extra range of the Volt. I do do miss the longer battery range of the iMev.

They are shooting themselves in the foot. Just leave it at $40K is tax free (or whatever it is), then tax above that. If some “rich” person buys a $140K Tesla, the State will still get the tax dollars on the $100k. Seems like a good deal for the State.


We should initiate a “Legacy Support” tax for all Gas and Diesel public fuels. Use the tax to fund EV incentive programs……lol

Washington Governor is a strong BEV ally, I hope he would veto any nonsense.

is the WA state sales tax exemption their form of a credit or rebate for EV’s in other words they don’t offer any other form of EV credit or rebate? in Texas you have to pay sales tax on the car but they have a fund to that gets you a $2500 rebate check. The state put a couple million in the fund and it runs until the fund is depleted. Hopefully the state will put more $ and renew the fund later this year. The rebate only applies to new cars not to used cars. Think about it a EV rebate in big oil Texas! The Texas fund is not about getting off gas it’s about reducing pollution If most of the EV’s being sold are leased then a sales exemption applied to used is a good idea. Makes it easier to move used Leafs, Volts, etc and thus build demand for used EV market. A good used market means your new EV purchase will hold more value at trade in time. A good used market is one of the keys to driving new units sales. Imagine demand for used EV’s exceeding the supply! Why is WA even considering… Read more »

I love how easy it is to get leftists to strangle themselves. “we have to subsidize EVs to help the environment…. Oh my god did you know that RICH people buy EVs? this can’t stand” “We have to get rid of polluting coal… Oh my god do you know poor unionized coal workers are losing their jobs?” “Building dams in California hurts the environment… Oh crap we have a drought because we have nowhere to put the water!”

And on and on and on. You guys are funnnnnnny.

The bright side to this is that firms like Tesla, BMW and Mercedes will develope a car at $35k due to new more affordable technology such as in batteries and carbon fiber materials. Or…. States like Washington will do away all together the tax excemption and add a higher registration (tax) fee to electric vehicles. The only win solution is where you get your electricity solar power or the power company.

A hard cap based on either MSRP or selling price is a really dumb idea. It will encourage all sorts of workarounds such as turning upgrades into accessories sold after the fact instead of options sold with the car. For example, Tesla could sell a Model 3 with a LEAF sized battery pack, econo wheels, and all the fancy gadgets disabled with software to get the price under the cap. Then after someone buys the car and gets the incentive, they go back to Tesla and swap the battery pack, swap the wheels, and pay to unlock all the options that were disabled via software. That is precisely what they did with peope that ordered 40 kWh cars with a base price of $49,900 (after Federal incentive). The people actually got 60 kWh batteries that were software limited to 40 kWh and they had to pay $10,000 to unlock the other 20 kWh of battery capacity.

Attended a Tesla open house in 2013. Governor Jay Inslee gave a speech of support for Tesla, EV’s, and green industries.

This bill puts taxes above the environment. For the tax the rich crowd I would say at least half the crowd belonged to the middle class.

Any plans to have used EVs and EREVs like the Volt to be a tax free purchase for second owners?

They are offering that in pocketed areas of L.A. and NorCal. If your at the poverty level you can get a nice credit to almost pay in full for a used EV. That’s promoting EV’s. People can talk shit about Cali but at the end of the day they are the most forward thinking and innovative. Someone has to set the bar for others to follow suit.

EV’s are still in the infancy stage. For EV’s to succeed they need the affluent to buy these outrageously expensive $100k EV’s and be the test rabbits for future infrastructure. I quite frankly am on the fence about getting a new Tesla or another new gas guzzling Porsche Cayenne Turbo. Waiting to see how WA politics react to promote or tax and slow down the efforts to get more EV’s on the road. If the WA EV sales tax exemption does sunset in July then I will continue to drive 12mpg V8 Mercedes and Porsches simple as that. There has to be an incentive to be a geniuypig and drive a car with charging stations crazy miles apart. That’s a lot of time lost if you forget to plug in and need a tow.

It’s bad enough that the sales tax exemption for electric vehicles in Washington State will be expiring July 1, 2015, but what really upsets me is that legislators are proposing a three-year lookback for those who bought or leased EVs during the time the previous bill was in effect! I’ve already received my next month’s lease bill from BMW Financial for $62.18 more!!

My problem is I am retired and on SSI and not in the upper tax brackets, I would like to buy a Chevy volt but can’t Take advantage of the Federal tax Refunds or
State tax Credits. Why Can’t the Feds and/or state Allow some tax relief for us?