Quote:
Originally Posted by techwhiz1
I believe you are incorrect.
The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would be an argument that a benefit offered to one tax payer is impossible to collect by another tax payer with the only problem is that state law won't allow a binding contract.
Also IRS guidance after the fact is irrelevant. The guidance can be applicable moving forward but the constitution also shields us from behavior before a law or guidance.
You can't make something illegal today and prosecute someone for that behavior yesterday. The IRS is also bound by the constitution.
|
It does not look to me the IRS guidance and IRA itself prosecute someone for specific behavior yesterday.
However, for sure IRA picks what past behaviors are deemed appropriate and worthy to be rewarded.
In that regard, IRS's guidance of IRA asks for a state-level enforceable written bidding contract that demonstrates that the taxpayers show commitment.
The 5% safe harbor does align with Section 1603 and 2013-29 prior to IRA, so that is an established threshold that IRS picks as good past behaviors to reward(i.e. no scrutiny is needed).
I assume all CA dealers ask for some deposit to order i4. If any CA taxpayer pays such deposit(which is refundable in CA), of any amount, that already makes the contract non-bidding per 2013-29(which again predates IRA by 9 years).
My guess is IRS likely will just clarify to say 5% safe harbor is required, such that tax software can put that in their questionaires to ask taxpayers.