This is noise. The condescending language clearly demonstrates your need to feel right.

I don’t see anything here that is a reasonable answer to OP’s question: when can OP claim the credit (2022 or 2023).

• Nothing on how the project drug to this month.
• Nothing on when a credit should be claimed for OP.
• Nothing on how OP can decide “this point” is when it is appropriate to claim credit

How could any this be right?

This is just noise.

Characterizing this conversation as borderline malpractice seems like a pretty extreme viewpoint. Since, we are not in the same room as OP, we fill in the blanks and provide reddit advice which is inherently risky. Consider the comments, and use your own best judgment on how to proceed (decide on your own, pay for advice, etc).

My goals are to consider my audience when communicating and to help point OP in the right direction. A bunch of accurate legal jargon typically muddies the waters for the average person. The rest of this back and forth is just noise.

Getting back to OP’s question … OP wants to better understand when the credit should be claimed.

Assuming… residential, not business, new system, not substantial home construction/reconstruction. Seems pretty straightforward a system should be in service (which is when it is complete) to claim the credit.

Abbreviated (i am on my phone) IRC code sections for my feisty friend:

Allowance of a credit for an individual, qualified solar electric property expenditures IRC 25D(a)1

Applicable percentage in the case of property placed in service after 12/31/21 and before 1/1/33 is 30% IRC 25D(g)(3)

An expenditure shall be treated as made when the original installation of the item is completed 25D(e)(8)

There isn’t any real controversy here.

Thank you for the additional comments. Genuinely appreciate the thorough approach. Language and the definitions do matter.

Congress doesn’t always look at every specific detail of how a statute is implemented when the statute is written.

The intent may have been to codify two sequential events. In practice, a system is only complete after it is connected to a utility, which is in service. The two events are concurrently occurring. I guess it would be possible for a taxpayer to pay for a system and have it connected for service and immediately disable the system and still claim the credit. Thus, it would not be in service and still qualify.

For OPs benefit, I propose tested for in service is a standard that makes sense to follow when claiming the credit.

Additional outside support might be seen in the installers contract for services, which likely define the installation complete when the system has been connected to the utility. Moreover, the 0% solar loan programs make payment to installers only after the system is connected to the utility. Both would require tested for in service.

Just not sure how the definitions and citations you provided better enable OP to determine when it is appropriate to claim the credit -

Agreed, the language does not explicitly match “in service” requirement. I would modify the description of the requirement to “tested for in service “.

While publication isn’t explicit on the “in service” requirement, practically “in service” is necessary. How would one argue a system is complete without connecting it to a utility, which have building permit regulations for in service testing requirements?

Subsequently, a system could not be successfully argued as complete until it meets those standards.

You could attempt to argue a system is complete by pointing to a non-authoritative publication, provide unique proof it is complete without meeting building permit standards (which require connection testing) which would effectively be after “in service testing “.

Practically, it should be in service.

Came here to say this

To claim credit requires system is in service. If system service started in 2023, eligible credit should be claimed in 2023

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i5695