Court Rulings

Olsen vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
November 4, 2022
This appeal addresses the denial of tax benefits relating to Mr. Preston Olsen’s purchases of solar lenses. These benefits are available only if the taxpayer has a profit motive for the purchases. Applying this requirement, the tax court disallowed tax benefits in part because Mr. Olsen had lacked a profit motive. In our view, the tax court did not err in rejecting a profit motive, so we affirm.

PelleVerde Capital LLC vs. Board of Assessors of West Bridgewater
September 21, 2022
PelleVerde sought personal property tax abatements for each of the three tax years, all of which were denied by the board of assessors of West Bridgewater (assessors). PelleVerde then appealed to the Appellate Tax Board (board), arguing that it was entitled to the solar exemption. The board affirmed the decisions of the assessors, concluding that the municipal properties supplied by PelleVerde's solar facility were not subject to taxation under G. L. c. 59 and, therefore, PelleVerde was not entitled to the solar exemption.

Duke Energy Corporation vs. South Carolina Department of Revenue
October 27, 2020
Duke and the Department disagree whether subsection (G) of section 12-14-60 limits the capital investment tax credit to $5 million per taxable year or per lifetime. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court issued a summary judgment in favor of the Department, enforcing a lifetime limit for the ITC.

WestRock Virginia Corporation v. United States
November 4, 2019
WestRock Virginia Corporation (“WestRock”) appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) affirming the Department of the Treasury’s award of a cash grant to WestRock in an amount that WestRock contends is less than the grant amount required under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Section 1603”).

Alternative Carbon Resources LLC v. United States
Sept. 26, 2019
Alternative Carbon cannot show that it was entitled to claim the alternative fuel mixture credits under Section 6426, nor can it show that it had reasonable cause to do so. The Claims Court entered summary judgment in favor of the government. The U.S. Cour tof Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision.

Cross Refined Coal LLC, USA Refined Coal LLC vs. Commssioner of Internal Revenue
Aug. 29, 2019
The U.S. Tax Court Ruled that the plaintiffs, partners in a chemically trated coal production property ,were bona fide and entitled to tax credits

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.      

ALL MATERIAL ON THIS PAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON OR CONSTRUED AS PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OFFERED BY NOVOGRADAC.
ANY ADVICE AND INTERPRETATION REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM YOUR RETAINED TAX AND/OR LEGAL ADVISORS.