Internal Revenue Code
Subscribe to Internal Revenue Code's Posts

Court Rules That Wind Farm Did Not Provide Proof of Development Fee to Receive 1603 Cash Grant

On June 20, 2019, the United States Court of Federal Claims published its long-awaited opinion in California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. United StatesNo. 14-250 C. The opinion addressed how taxpayers engaging in related party transactions may appropriately determine the cost basis with respect to a wind energy project under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Central to the case was whether the taxpayer was allowed to include a $50 million development fee paid by a project entity to a related developer in the cost basis of a wind project for purposes of calculating the cash grant under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (Section 1603). Section 1603 allowed taxpayers to take a cash grant in lieu of the production tax credit of up to 30% of the eligible cost basis of a wind project. The eligible cost basis under Section 1603 is determined in the same manner as under Section 45 for purposes of the investment tax credit (ITC). The Justice Department disagreed with the taxpayer’s position that the development fee should be included in the cost basis for calculating the Section 1603 cash grant. The Justice Department argued that the development fee was a “sham.”

The court agreed, and held for the government. The court’s opinion focused on the taxpayer’s failure to provide evidence that the payment of the development fee had “economic substance.” Indeed, the court was troubled that none of the taxpayer’s witnesses could explain what was actually done to earn the $50 million development fee. Other than a three‑page development agreement and the taxpayer’s bank statements identifying the wire transfers for payment of the development fee, which started and ended with the same entity, the court found that the taxpayer provided no other factual evidence to support the payment of the fee. Indeed, the court pointed to the taxpayer’s trial testimony, which the court found lacked the specificity needed to support the development fee. Because the taxpayer failed to carry its burden of proof and persuasion, the court concluded that the taxpayer was not entitled to include the $50 million development fee in the cost basis of the wind project for purposes of computing the Section 1603 cash grant.

Importantly, the court did not, however, rule that a development fee paid to a related party is not permitted to be included in the cost basis of a facility for purposes of determining the Section 1603 cash grant. Instead, the court simply ruled that the taxpayer failed to provide it with sufficient proof that in substance the taxpayer performed development services for which a development fee is appropriately considered part of the cost basis of a facility for purposes of determining the Section 1603 cash grant.

Practice Point: In court, the plaintiff has the burden of proving its entitlement to the relief sought. Before filing a case, it’s best to make sure that you have all of the evidence you need to prove your case. Without substantial and [...]

Continue Reading




IRS Rules (Again) That Taxpayers Are Not Entitled to Claimed Refined Coal Credits

In a highly-anticipated Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) dated March 23, 2017 and released on July 21, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruled that two taxpayers who had invested in a Limited Liability Company that owned and operated a refined coal facility (the LLC) were not entitled to refined coal production credits they had claimed because their investment in the LLC was structured “solely to facilitate the prohibited purchase of refined coal tax credits.” This analysis marks a departure from the position staked out by the IRS in a number of recent refined coal credit cases, which focused on whether taxpayers claiming refined coal credits were partners in a partnership that owned and operated a refined coal facility.

(more…)




Final Regulations Define ‘Real Property’ for REITs: Considerations for Renewable Energy and Transmission Assets

On August 31, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and US Department of the Treasury issued final regulations (Final Regulations) under section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code to clarify the definition of “real property” for purposes of sections 856 through 859 relating to real estate investment trusts (REITs). The Final Regulations largely follow proposed regulations issued in 2014 (Proposed Regulations) by providing a safe harbor list of assets and establishing facts and circumstances tests to analyze other assets.

Read the full article.




Short-Term Reauthorization of FAA Programs Potentially Paves the Way For Omitted Energy Credit Extenders

As discussed in our post on March 16, the Congressional extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 45 and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) under IRC Section 48 in December 2015 failed to include extensions for certain types of renewable energy property, including fuel cell power plants, stationary microturbine power plants, small wind energy property, combined heat and power system property, and geothermal heat pump property. Congressional leaders have stated that the omission was an oversight that would be addressed in 2016.

On March 30, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the Airway and Airport Extension Act of 2016 (H.R. 4721) (the Act), which extends certain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs and revenue provisions only through July 15, 2016. Expiring in less than four months, the FAA extension was apparently crafted with an intentionally short timeframe to allow inclusion of the omitted PTC and ITC provisions in long-term FAA reauthorization legislation that will likely follow this summer.  Accordingly, while the Act does not directly address the energy tax provisions omitted from last year’s extenders package, experts hope that it paves the way to addressing the omission in a few months.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-WY) has said that he hopes to introduce a long-term FAA bill addressing the omitted energy tax credit extenders after the Senate returns this week. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) has expressed opposition to attaching energy credit tax extenders to the FAA reauthorization legislation. As developments occur, we will update this blog.




President Obama Signs Consolidated Appropriations Act

Renewable Energy Industry Seeks Additional Energy Credit Clarifications

On December 18, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029) (the Act). The Act includes multi-year extensions of the Production Tax Credit (the PTC) under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 45 and the Investment Tax Credit (the ITC) under IRC Section 48 for wind and solar projects—both of which are gradually phased out. The Act, however, did not extend the ITC for other types of renewable energy property, including fuel cell power plants, stationary microturbine power plants, small wind energy property, combined heat and power system property, and geothermal heat pump property. Read further discussion of the Act’s extension of renewable energy tax incentives. (more…)




The IRS Retains Control of Tax Issues Relating to the Section 1603 Grant

by Madeline M. Chiampou and Brian Levy

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently set forth a set of questions and answers about the federal income tax consequences related to the receipt of a Section 1603 grant in lieu of investment tax credits for renewable energy projects in Notice 2012-23. While none of the guidance provided in this notice is novel, the purpose is to confirm that the IRS will follow Section 1603 grant guidance with respect to the specific rules set forth in the grant program relating to the tax treatment of grant recipients and qualification of taxpayers for the grant. Additionally, the notice indicates that, where the grant program departs from the rules in the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations on which the grant program is based, the IRS will continue to follow the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations with respect to the same renewable energy projects. For example, computing tax depreciation and making placed in service determinations will follow the code and Treasury regulations. 

The notice addresses the income tax consequences of the receipt of the grant and the taxpayer’s basis in the specified energy property. The notice states that the grant is not includible in the taxpayer’s gross income and the taxpayer’s basis in the specified energy property is reduced by 50 percent of the payment. This is clear from grant guidance and the notice only confirms that the grant is treated the same as an investment tax credit under Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The notice also addresses the income tax consequences to a taxpayer who receives both the grant and either a Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee or an energy conservation subsidy from a public utility. The notice confirms that receipt of a DOE loan guarantee does not reduce the taxpayer’s basis in its renewable energy project. With respect to energy conservation subsidies, the notice indicates that, under Section 136 of the Internal Revenue Code, an energy conservation subsidy provided by public utility might be excluded from income and therefore reduces the basis of specified energy property by the amount of the exclusion. This implies, as most tax practitioners understood, that energy conservation subsidies not expressly excluded from gross income statutorily are includible in income unless some other Internal Revenue Code exception applies. Referring specifically to a question and answer in the “Frequently Asked Questions” issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury with respect to the grant, the notice confirmed that if an amount received is excluded from income, a corresponding basis reduction in the relevant property is warranted and, if no amount is excluded from income, then no reduction in basis is required.

The notice addresses whether Internal Revenue Code Section 168(h)(6) applies for purposes of determining the partnership’s depreciation deductions when a partnership that is eligible to receive a Section 1603 grant has as a partner a corporation that is a “tax-exempt controlled entity” (within the meaning of section 168[h][6][F]) meaning any corporation if 50 percent or more (in value) of the stock in [...]

Continue Reading




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES