Attention KANSANS! Tax Warning...

Here's a story for ya, kids:

Okay, at first it was funny, but now I'm just plain tee'd off.

I purchased my Toyota Prius last year (2004) and filed for Kansas's K-62 alternative fuel tax credit as well as the federal offering. My friend, who also purchased a new Prius in 2004, filed for the same K-62 credit. The difference? According to the State of Kansas, my friend's Prius is an alternative-fuel vehicle, while my Prius apparently isn't. ?!? Now that's bureaucracy at work.

So I contacted the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) and asked why my K-62 claim had been removed from my return without any explanation. They said I needed to request an appeal via certified mail. So I did, and didn't a peep from them for almost two months. In total, that's seven months so far I've been waiting for my 2004 tax return; pretty pathetic if you ask me!

After a few email messages, I finally got a message back from KDOR. They asked me to refile my appeal along with all the documents they asked for during my initial tax filing last spring. The buyer's order, K-62 alternative fuel tax credit form, etc. It almost seemed like they lost my return and all the documents associated with it (obviously, they wouldn't admit to such a thing). But in good spirits that somebody in the KDOR office was actually paying attention now, I resubmitted everything they asked for, including pictures proving that the car does, in fact, exist.

Then I received a mound of questions about the car. "Does it run from two separate fuel sources?" "Can it run on only one at a time?" And my personal favorite, "Is there a switch to change which energy source you're using?"

A switch?!? Now what possible relevance could that have in determining whether or not it is an alternative-fuel vehicle? I would think the fact that it can switch between the two sources would be a more relevant question! "Yes, it has an electronic switch," I replied, knowing that our ideas of a switch were likely different.

Moments later, I had a reply.

Now that's just insult to injury. First, delay my tax return five months while it sits on somebody's "to do" pile. Then, give me my return without the alternative-fuel credit or any explanation as to why it was removed. Then ask me to file an appeal that goes unanswered for two months until I hound someone about it. Then have me resubmit everything they should already have available to them. Then tell me that the Prius (and specifically my Prius) doesn't meet Kansas's definition of an alternative-fuel vehicle? My jaw dropped in disbelief of my own state's bureaucratic stupidity.

So I responded:

Yes, the letter is probably less constructive in nature and more of a vent, but it needed to be said, dangit!

I haven't yet received a reply, but I'll keep you posted. I'll probably lose money if I end up filing a lawsuit, but at this point I feel it is more important to hold the state accountable for their actions or inactions.

The Prius isn't an alternative fuel vehicle... I mean, what kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Are there any other Kansas Prius owners out there who filed for the K-62? If so, I'd be interested in hearing what kind of luck you had with your tax return.

Thinking of moving to another state,

Brandon

 

Uh, Nate, I would've thought you knew better, but the Prius does NOT run entirely on gasoline. It is a dual-fuel vehicle. It can run entirely on gas, but it can also run on electricity alone, or use both sources at the same time.

And my bubble is doing just fine; thanks for the concern.

 

Thanks for the perspective, FourOhFour. However, I must still insist that the Prius is correctly defined as an alternative-fuel vehicle by most standards. Remember that the electricity is not generated solely by gasoline; most of the time in my case, it is captured by regenerative braking, which utilizes energy normally lost as heat. If fuel is defined as a substance that provides energy, then electricity certainly meets the definition of fuel, thus establishing an alternative to unleaded gas.

By the same token, if we did assume that regenerative braking did not exist, and that the only way the battery could be recharged was by plugging it in or by energy generated from the combustion of gasoline, you still would have a bi-fuel or dual-fuel vehicle. Your perspective deals more with how the two sources of energy are produced, and less with the two energies, themselves. No matter how it was produced and/or stored, electricity is still driving that vehicle while the gas combustion engine is off.

 

The K-62 does distinguish between an E85 vehicle and a dual-fuel vehicle. Both are elegible for the tax credit according to the form (for Kansas, anyway). There has been a lot of lobbying in Kansas for ethanol, and as such, E85 vehicles are positioned to earn a larger credit. Some of the confusion here seems to be in how folks classify vehicles. The K-62 is inclusive of both "clean-fuel" vehicles and "alternative-fuel" vehicles, using your classification.

I suppose it would be a good idea to identify Kansas's K-62 form and its "classification scheme."
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/k-62.pdf

I guess the other point I would like to assert is that I believe the Prius (and other hybrids) are more than just clean-fuel vehicles. Yes, they use gasoline efficiently and burn it cleanly, but there's a whole other side concerning electic power, which to me can also classify the vehicle as an alternative-fuel vehicle, in your terms.

 

What's wrong with the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory? Seems about as reasonable as the rest of them out there... Okay back to the subject...

LaughingMan, I also have a strong suspicion that depleted credit funds are playing a large role in this. From what I've heard in years past, it's a Kansas trademark, especially when it comes to credits/subsidies for agriculture. They put a little bit of money out there so it makes them look good, but at the same time they hope no one actually tries to claim the credit.

I think another part of the situation is simply a matter of their ignorance of the hybrid technology and their own K-62 form. If the form really wasn't intended to include hybrid vehicles, then they should state that clearly in the form. Otherwise, the Prius and other hybrids breaking into the auto market fit the form's definition of an alternative-fuel vehicle eligible for the credit.

 

I guess I'm confused by your response, kpauley. What wording in that document clearly states that a hybrid cannot be an alternative-fuel vehicle?

Within the same text you cited, "Electricity" is included as an accepted alternative fuel. Also, I think that "Any other fuel determined by the U.S. Department of Energy that is substantially not petroleum and yields substantial energy security and environmental benefits" qualifies it, as well.