I've been thinking about this issue for a month and I can't come up with a decent argument for the IRS to support any sort of clawback. 26 USC Section 25D does not have any language stating that the property must remain in use for any particular period of time, as opposed to the language in 26 USC Section 25C(c)(1)(C) ("such component reasonably can be expected to remain in use for at least 5 years.")
All the IRA (sections 13301 and 13302 to be precise) really did for those who installed a battery in 2022 or earlier and legally claimed the tax credit was that it sort of forced the IRS to issue additional guidance updating IRS Notice 2013-70. That additional guidance (IRS FS 2022-40, page 6, A3) effectively admitted that pre-2023 battery installers could have always changed their batteries to be grid charged, which is kinda funny.
Specifically, almost anyone who ever claimed the tax credit and moved out of the home would also be subject to the same clawback. More specifically, 26 USC Section 25D(d)(2) requires the taxpayer to live in the home (that's slightly oversimplified, but just keep reading) to be able to claim the tax credit for the "qualified solar electric property expenditure." Moving out voids that "living there" element. Taking that same logic to the extreme, when someone dies, they're no longer living there too, so people have to repay the tax credit upon death. Obviously, that's not the intent of the law.
is now subject to some sort of clawback from the IRS because the battery is now no longer a "qualified solar electric property expenditure" under 26 USC Section 25D(a)(1) and the IRS private letter ruling, then that would have some serious ramifications for a lot of non-battery installers.
Specifically, almost anyone who ever claimed the tax credit and later moved out of the home would also be subject to the same clawback. More specifically, 26 USC Section 25D(d)(2) requires the taxpayer to live in the home (that's slightly oversimplified, but just keep reading) to be able to claim the tax credit for the "qualified solar electric property expenditure." Put simply, moving out defeats the "living there" element. Taking that same logic to the extreme, when someone dies, they're no longer living there too, so people have to repay the tax credit upon death. Obviously, that's not the intent of the law.
To me, the most logical explanation that fits within the language of the law is that whether something is a “qualified solar electric property expenditure” is only determined "when the original installation of the item is completed" pursuant to 26 USC Section 25D(e)(8)(A) (ignoring subparagraph (B)) or perhaps when the property is placed in service pursuant to 26 USC Section 25D(g).
After that, the person claiming the tax credit can do whatever they want with the property and the IRS has no legal argument to claw back the tax credit.
. . . but that's my opinion after reading the law and all those IRS documents I mentioned.