Court Rulings

Appeal Decision Cal. Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. United States
June 20, 2019
The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment in favor of the defendant, on its counterclaim, in the amount of $5.6 million, and plaintiff, California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC

Cal. Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. United States
January 7, 2019
The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment in favor of the defendant, on its counterclaim, in the amount of $5.6 million, and plaintiff, California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC

Appeal Decision Bishop Hill Energy LLC v. United States
June 20, 2019
Bishop Hill Energy LLC was denied motion to compel govt. responses to interrogatories LLC submitted in connection with its claim under 2009 ARRA §1603 for additional grant monies for developing wind power facility.

Bishop Hill Energy LLC v. U.S., Ct Fed Cl
December 2, 2015
Bishop Hill Energy LLC was denied motion to compel govt. responses to interrogatories LLC submitted in connection with its claim under 2009 ARRA §1603 for additional grant monies for developing wind power facility.

Alta Wind I Owner-Lessor C and Alta Wind I Owner-Lessor D, Et. Al. v. The United States (Judgment)
October 28, 2016
The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment in favor of Alta Wind cash grant applicants awarding them collectively over $206 million for grants under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act.

Alta Wind I Owner-Lessor C and Alta Wind I Owner-Lessor D, Et. Al. v. The United States (Decision)
October 24, 2016
The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment in favor of Alta Wind cash grant applicants awarding them collectively over $206 million for grants under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act.

CA Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. U.S., Ct Fed Cl
December 2, 2015
CA Ridge Wind Energy, LLC was denied motion to compel govt. responses to interrogatories LLC submitted in connection with its claim under 2009 ARRA §1603 for additional grant monies for developing wind power facility.

RP1 Fuel Cell LLC and UTS SJ-1 LLC vs. United States
March 31, 2015
The gas conditioning equipment located at the RP1 and SJ-1 fuel cell facilities are part of a “fuel cell power plant” pursuant to I.R.C. § 48(c)(1)(C), and, thus, are eligible for a Section 1603 grant as a “qualified fuel cell property” pursuant to Section 1603(d)(2).

Consolidated Edison Company of New York v. United States
January 9, 2013
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against lease-in, lease out (LILO) deductions, reversing and remanding a previous Claims Court decision that had allowed Consolidated Edison to claim rental deductions and interest expenses.

Tempel v. Commissioner
April 5, 2011
State Tax Credits as Property

ARRA Energy Company I, et al. v. United States
January 18, 2011
The Section 1603 Renewable Energy Grant Program is based on a money-mandating statute under which the government has “no discretion” to deny grants to qualified applicants.

Sparkman v. United States
December 28, 2008
Economic Substance: Court notes ‘a court must analyze the transaction on posttax basis.’

Sacks v. Commissioner
October 31, 1995
Plaintiff is entitled to investment tax credit and depreciation deductions due for investing in solar energy devices; Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was incorrect to disallow abatements on the ground that plaintiff's sale and leaseback transactions were shams.

Piggy Wiggly Southern Inc. v. Commissioner
April 18, 1985
Supermarket corp. allowed depreciation and investment credit on equipment purchased for remodeled, new, and relocated stores only when stores were open for business during tax year. Official reopening of remodeled stores didn't negate actual operations in earlier year. But where openings of new and remodeled stores was under taxpayer's control, equipment wasn't in use until year of opening. Supermarket's central heating, ventilating and air conditioning and heating units qualified for investment credit. Units were not considered structural components since they were installed solely to meet temperature and humidity requirements of refrigeration equipment in taxpayer's stores. Comfort of taxpayer's employees and customers was incidental to maintenance of proper environmental conditions for operation of machinery; and Energy Tax Act of 1978 didn't deny investment credit for central air conditioners.