718 Spyder RS owner/order thread

  • If you are really interested in the price, please send me a PN. I have deliberately not made the price public, as it would be unfair to the service center that bought my vehicle.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • bronsen
    June 11, 2024 at 10:32 PM

    Why shouldn't the SRS be able to run as a company car?
    My GT3 is also a company car, which was also no problem with previous BPs as long as the 1% tax was paid.

    Of course, it depends on the purpose of the company, as a delivery vehicle there are probably already acceptance problems with the tax office.

    It's not about the 1% rule, you could also keep a logbook. That doesn't matter.
    It's about the input tax deduction and the deduction as a business expense. You won't be able to explain to a tax auditor that you need a GT 3 to do better business with a customer, unless you have a racetrack business. I can't imagine that this has ever gone through during a tax audit. Here you also have to differentiate between external tax audits and actual tax audits, which are actually relatively rare, but then usually really bang on. However, I don't want to imply that it hasn't worked in individual cases. There is a ruling from a dentist who wanted to deduct a Ferrari as a business expense. The tax authorities are happy to accept that and then that's it for deductions.


    https://www.arzt-wirtschaft.de…rsteuerabzug-fuer-ferrari

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • bronsen
    June 11, 2024 at 10:32 PM

    Why shouldn't the SRS be able to run as a company car?
    My GT3 is also a company car, which was also no problem with previous BPs as long as the 1% tax was paid.

    Of course, it depends on the purpose of the company, as a delivery vehicle there are probably already acceptance problems with the tax office.

    It's not about the 1% rule, you could also keep a logbook. That doesn't matter.
    It's about the input tax deduction and the deduction as a business expense. You won't be able to explain to a tax auditor that you need a GT 3 to do better business with a customer, unless you have a racetrack business. I can't imagine that this has ever gone through during a tax audit. Here you also have to differentiate between external tax audits and actual tax audits, which are actually relatively rare, but then usually really bang on. However, I don't want to imply that it hasn't worked in individual cases. There is a ruling from a dentist who wanted to deduct a Ferrari as a business expense. The tax authorities are happy to accept that and then that's it for deductions.


    https://www.arzt-wirtschaft.de…rsteuerabzug-fuer-ferrari

    The ruling (and other rulings) was about appropriateness, i.e. primarily about the relationship between the turnover and profit of the company/freelancer in relation to the cost of the car. If the company has a turnover of EUR 200,000 and a profit of EUR 50,000 and the Ferrari produces leasing expenses and running costs that eat up the majority of the profit, this is considered unreasonable.

    With a profit of EUR 500,000, the tax office will have nothing to say against a GT3 used by the manager/owner as a business asset that costs EUR 50,000 a year.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • bronsen
    June 11, 2024 at 10:32 PM

    Why shouldn't the SRS be able to run as a company car?
    My GT3 is also a company car, which was also no problem with previous BPs as long as the 1% tax was paid.

    Of course, it depends on the purpose of the company, as a delivery vehicle there are probably already acceptance problems with the tax office.

    It's not about the 1% rule, you could also keep a logbook. That doesn't matter.
    It's about the input tax deduction and the deduction as a business expense. You won't be able to explain to a tax auditor that you need a GT 3 to do better business with a customer, unless you have a racetrack business. I can't imagine that this has ever gone through during a tax audit. Here you also have to differentiate between external tax audits and actual tax audits, which are actually relatively rare, but then usually really bang on. However, I don't want to imply that it hasn't worked in individual cases. There is a ruling from a dentist who wanted to deduct a Ferrari as a business expense. The tax authorities are happy to accept that and then that's it for deductions.


    https://www.arzt-wirtschaft.de…rsteuerabzug-fuer-ferrari

    With "influencers", that should work with business assets...

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • It's not about the 1% rule, you could also keep a logbook. That doesn't matter.
    It's about the input tax deduction and the deduction as a business expense. You won't be able to explain to a tax auditor that you need a GT 3 to do better business with a customer, unless you have a racetrack business. I can't imagine that this has ever gone through during a tax audit. Here you also have to differentiate between external tax audits and actual tax audits, which are actually relatively rare, but then usually really bang on. However, I don't want to imply that it hasn't worked in individual cases. There is a ruling from a dentist who wanted to deduct a Ferrari as a business expense. The tax authorities are happy to accept that and then that's it for deductions.


    https://www.arzt-wirtschaft.de…rsteuerabzug-fuer-ferrari

    For "influencers", that should work with business assets...

    Has nothing to do with the profession; it's about the relationship between the turnover/profit of the business and the costs of the car. If at least 10% of the car is used for business purposes, the car can be kept in the business if the above-mentioned ratios fit. Whether the successful radiologist, lawyer, master craftsman, influencer or whatever now drives a 992 GTS, GT3 or SRS is completely irrelevant, as long as the 10% limit is reached and the appropriateness is given.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Anyone who thinks that everything that was approved in his last BP also corresponds to the legal situation is wrong. However, the topic of cars and business expenses is a broad field with many points of contention that we will not be able to defuse in this thread.

    However, the basic consideration of the BFH is always the balance between the interest of representation and the interest of affection. The latter is already disproportionately high in the case of SRS.

    Another problem with SRS will often be the low mileage per year. The BFH has already capped the deductible expenses at 2 €/km.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Anyone who thinks that everything that was approved in his last BP also corresponds to the legal situation is wrong. However, the topic of cars and business expenses is a broad field with many points of contention that we will not be able to defuse in this thread.

    However, the basic consideration of the BFH is always the balance between representational interest and affective interest. The latter is already disproportionately high in the case of SRS.

    Another problem with SRS will often be the low mileage per year. The BFH has already capped the deductible expenses at 2 €/km.

    That's how it is. This is called the principle of sectional taxation and means that a single or multiple nod from the tax audit does not mean that a precedent has been set for the future.

    However, if you use your SRS as a daily driver and company car and the ratio of profit to costs for the car is right, I think you should get it through the BP despite the high affective effect of the car. The question is whether you want to put up with these discussions. It's too stupid for me; I wouldn't want to pay tax on 1% or keep a logbook for the SRS. And I wouldn't want to have the car as business assets either. After a few years of depreciation and a market value that is likely to be higher than the book value, a taxable profit may be made when the car is sold or withdrawn. I'd rather leave the car in PV.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • Anyone who thinks that everything that was approved in his last BP also corresponds to the legal situation is wrong. However, the topic of cars and business expenses is a broad field with many points of contention that we will not be able to defuse in this thread.

    However, the basic consideration of the BFH is always the balance between the interest of representation and the interest of affection. The latter is already disproportionately high in the case of SRS.

    Another problem with SRS will often be the low mileage per year. The BFH has already capped the deductible expenses at 2 €/km.

    That's how it is. This is called the principle of sectional taxation and means that a single or multiple nod from the tax audit does not mean that a precedent has been set for the future.

    However, if you use your SRS as a daily driver and company car and the ratio of profit to costs for the car is right, I think you should get it through the BP despite the high affective effect of the car. The question is whether you want to put up with these discussions. It's too stupid for me; I wouldn't want to pay tax on 1% or keep a logbook for the SRS. And I wouldn't want to have the car as business assets either. After a few years of depreciation and a market value that is likely to be higher than the book value, a taxable profit may be made when the car is sold or withdrawn. I'd rather leave the car in PV.

    That's what I say....but nobody who books the part into the company wants to hear that. My tax advisor (who used to work at the tax office himself) always strongly advised me against this. He will know why.

    This post has been automatically translated.

  • GT4 RS & Spyder RS > New basic vehicle price on the German homepage € 158,700.00 as of today.

    Right? :/

    This post has been automatically translated.