[RE-wrenches] [RE Marketing] Marketing] Question about Solar Tax Credit basis

[William Miller]

Colleagues:

This is related question:  How does one categorize a building that holds up 
a solar array?

I am awaiting an inspection today on an installation on an agricultural 
barn.  In these parts, an Ag barn does not require a permit.  We put a 
solar array on the barn in 2008 and although a permit was required for the 
solar, no structural engineering was required.

When we installed an expansion just recently, the building department 
required a engineering study on the structural integrity of the 
building.  I was told that the barn was no longer a barn once the barn is 
used to hold up a PV Array.  To quote the building official:

Even though Ag-exempt buildings are required to be code compliant there is 
no assurance that it was constructed as such.  To use it for other than the 
stipulated purpose as defined in the ordinance of an Ag-exempt building, it 
technically takes it out of that realm and thus triggers a structural 
review.

In my opinion, this is BS.  That point is reinforced by the fact that we 
can't take a 30% tax credit for the cost of the "PV support 
structure"  (the barn).

I received a waiver on this project so we did not have to pay for a 
structural review.  I now know that next time I propose a project like this 
to be prepared for an extra expense.

William Miller





At 05:52 AM 2/22/2012, you wrote:
>So Scott's reply seemed less ambiguous - not a chance for claiming any
>"dual use" costs.  Julie's response made me think there is wiggle room -
>that the barn/shed built to put an array on top of it instead of building
>some ground mount structures would not work without the roof and
>therefore, some portion of the structural cost could be included in the
>system's basis for figuring the tax credit.  On an intuitive level, this
>would be potentially justifiable (not that the tax code is ever
>intuitive...).
>
>Our experience supports Scott's take, since a client's 1603 tax grant
>application which included some building expenses was denied those
>additional grant dollars.  I'm just trying to figure out if there is any
>chance for an appeal of that decision, or if the 1603 grant process was
>just more stringent in the reading of what I see as ambiguous language
>than an audit of the regular tax credit.
>
>Thanks,
>Howie
>--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20120222/1617d41f/attachment-0004.html>