Annoyed

electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Occupation
Electrician
So apparently there is scheme where companies can still get residential solar the 30% tax credit. Has anyone heard of this? Basically its on paper owned by the company and there is "loan" that you can pay off after 6 months with no penalties and then you own the system and the bank gets the tax credit or something like that. Whats annoying is you kinda have to in practice be a larger company and in kahoots with the banks to make it work. So essentially all the small solar guys cant do but these large scumbag companies can. Great. Thanks.
 
Most regulations and subsidies hurt small business and favor large businesses. For example workman's comp saves large corporations millions, maybe billions, but for small companies it's effectively just another tax that they will never benefit from but are required to pay anyway. I'm sure others will chime in with more.

It's not a bad thing if you are never the most successful company because there is always somebody else who is willing to lie cheat and steal more than you. Some things are worth more than dollars.
 
Setting the sale up as a "solar lease" on paper makes it a commercial PV installation which still qualifies for the 30% tax credit. I have not known anyone doing these, I've just read about them. As far as I can tell there is nothing technically illegal about this, but I'm not a tax lawyer. Could be the IRS comes back in a few years and yanks these tax credits back from these installs.
 
Since to make this work the installer has the carry the cost of the system components and installation and the customer pays only a monthly lease fee for the term of the lease before the customer buyout the installer capital cost is high. It takes a lot of capital and probably access to capital through a bank, so only larger PV installers can take advantage of this. I can speculate that the secret of all this is deciding what the minimum "lease" term can be before the customer buyout that makes it a legitimate solar lease and not a standard sale that would stand up to an IRS challenge.
 
pv_n00b said:
Since to make this work the installer has the carry the cost of the system components and installation and the customer pays only a monthly lease fee for the term of the lease before the customer buyout the installer capital cost is high. It takes a lot of capital and probably access to capital through a bank, so only larger PV installers can take advantage of this. I can speculate that the secret of all this is deciding what the minimum "lease" term can be before the customer buyout that makes it a legitimate solar lease and not a standard sale that would stand up to an IRS challenge.
Click to expand...
I think it was a 6 month lease. I mean its nice to have defacto access to the tax credit, but essentially all smaller installers are shut out. Also I would guess what is happening is the price is getting inflated for more tax credit money, which is needed to cover these middle men.
 
electrofelon said:
I think it was a 6 month lease. I mean its nice to have defacto access to the tax credit, but essentially all smaller installers are shut out. Also I would guess what is happening is the price is getting inflated for more tax credit money, which is needed to cover these middle men.
Click to expand...
The overall cost will be more just for the capital financing. In this case the installer would get the 30% tax credit on their taxes and not the customer, but that is not right away and it could take up to a year to get that money back. For that period the installer is financing that 30% tax credit. The installer is the one taking the risk that the IRS smells a rat and comes back later to claw back the tax credit. Seems to me like a lot of work and cost to weigh against the 30% tax credit.
 
pv_n00b said:
The overall cost will be more just for the capital financing. In this case the installer would get the 30% tax credit on their taxes and not the customer, but that is not right away and it could take up to a year to get that money back. For that period the installer is financing that 30% tax credit. The installer is the one taking the risk that the IRS smells a rat and comes back later to claw back the tax credit. Seems to me like a lot of work and cost to weigh against the 30% tax credit.
Click to expand...
There is a bank involved that finances the tax credit. Im just saying no one is going to do this for free and just pass on the full tax credit to the client out of the goodness of their hearts. The banks, the solar integrator need to make money so like I said they just must be inflating the cost of the system to cover all this.
 
This thread had gotten off to a bad start as far is giving good information...

As a small installer there are several companies that you can sign up with who will 'own' the system. It's called TPO for third party ownership. There's paperwork and they have 'approved vendor lists' of which equipment they will allow in part of their deals. Each is going to have their own specific types of deals and processes. In some cases the process involves 'direct pay' from the TPO company to your equipment dealer, so you do NOT have to front the cost of equipment. In other cases the homeowner still pays you and then you get paid a portion of the deal after installation.

Message me if you want a list, I don't want to be seen as advertising anyone in particular publicly.
 
In some of these deals the homeowner can pay off the lease or loan right away without penalty or interest so they don't really pay for financing or it's up to them how much.
 
jaggedben said:
This thread had gotten off to a bad start as far is giving good information...
Click to expand...

I don't see that there's been any bad information. Okay an accountant or lawyer might nitpick what has been said and the terms that have been used. "Tax equity partnership" is the correct word, at least for the company we got a quote from. Those details are irrelevant to the purpose of the thread IMO.
 
electrofelon said:
I don't see that there's been any bad information. Okay an accountant or lawyer might nitpick what has been said and the terms that have been used. "Tax equity partnership" is the correct word, at least for the company we got a quote from. Those details are irrelevant to the purpose of the thread IMO.
Click to expand...
Some not so accurate stuff that has been said:
Small installers are shut out
Banks involved
Monthly payment
Costs more to homeowner
Installer has to front the cost

With some of those assertions it's just not true and in others it's not necessarily true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top