<html>
<body>
Colleagues:<br><br>
This is related question: How does one categorize a building that
holds up a solar array?<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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:<br><br>
<i>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. <br><br>
</i>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). <br><br>
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.<br><br>
William Miller<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 05:52 AM 2/22/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>So Scott's reply seemed less
ambiguous - not a chance for claiming any<br>
"dual use" costs. Julie's response made me think there is
wiggle room -<br>
that the barn/shed built to put an array on top of it instead of
building<br>
some ground mount structures would not work without the roof and<br>
therefore, some portion of the structural cost could be included in
the<br>
system's basis for figuring the tax credit. On an intuitive level,
this<br>
would be potentially justifiable (not that the tax code is ever<br>
intuitive...).<br><br>
Our experience supports Scott's take, since a client's 1603 tax
grant<br>
application which included some building expenses was denied those<br>
additional grant dollars. I'm just trying to figure out if there is
any<br>
chance for an appeal of that decision, or if the 1603 grant process
was<br>
just more stringent in the reading of what I see as ambiguous
language<br>
than an audit of the regular tax credit.<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Howie<br>
-- </blockquote></body>
</html>