"Long-time resident" qualifying for First-Time Homebuyer Credit

They obviously purchased a new structure.... I suggest an appeal. (Can't hurt to try.)

That's a case I hadn't thought about - but he did construct a new structure.

In both of these cases, I note that the taxpayer did NOT [recently] buy the land on which the new structure was to be placed, but bought/constructed only the structure. I suggest that the statute for the credit be reviewed very carefully to see if such situations are includible for the credit.

Weren't there some situations in NY where one buys the structure but merely rents the land (a 100+ year lease) from the local Native American tribe? Did any of those make it to the courts for a tax question?

thanks; I'm debating appeals vs. taxpayer advocate at this point.

If anyone is interested, this is the IRS reason for disallowing the credit: "The new mobile home must be installed on a new site or lot. You installed a new mobile home on the same lot or site."

no citation is given and I can find nothing in Section 36(c)(5) that would prevent someone from claiming the long time resident credit based on location of the new house. Only further cite is Section 121, but only for the definition of a primary residence.

Didn't a similar question come up recently, perhaps concerning the homeowner's examption? As I recall in that situation the IRS says that it's not your residence unless it involves both structure and property.

Are you sure? IIRC, the credit also is available to filers who purchase an RV or boat and use it as their main home.

Yes, I believe RVs and boats qualify for the exemption. But I don't think you get the exemption if you sell the RV, for example, and get a new one placed on the same lot. You have to change both the structure and whatever it is sitting on (or where it's docked).

Again, that is just my slightly more than vague recollection based on what I recall was a discussion in this group not too long ago. I haven't researched this point lately.