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 verifiable proof, a court is likely to rule against your position. Taxpayers entering into ITC transactions should carefully plan as they negotiate their transaction documents to sufficiently demonstrate the substance of the transactions.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Heather Cooper Heather Cooper

 

Heather Cooper works on federal income tax matters, with a focus on energy tax issues. She represents clients in restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, and other transactional energy related matters. Heather’s national practice includes advising on all aspects of renewable energy transactions such…

 

Heather Cooper works on federal income tax matters, with a focus on energy tax issues. She represents clients in restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, and other transactional energy related matters. Heather’s national practice includes advising on all aspects of renewable energy transactions such as solar and wind projects. She provides advice on tax equity structures, refinancings, acquisitions and dispositions, restructurings and workouts. Read Heather Cooper’s full bio.

Photo of Martha Groves Pugh Martha Groves Pugh

 

Martha (Marty) Groves Pugh advises clients on federal income tax issues with a particular emphasis on the nuclear and energy industries. Marty has helped clients seek and receive many private letter rulings and has extensive experience in drafting legislative language for tax…

 

Martha (Marty) Groves Pugh advises clients on federal income tax issues with a particular emphasis on the nuclear and energy industries. Marty has helped clients seek and receive many private letter rulings and has extensive experience in drafting legislative language for tax proposals and interacting with the US Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service on important industry issues. Her practice also includes tax planning for proposed transactions and advising clients on audits, appeals and litigation issues. Read Martha Groves Pugh’s full bio.

Photo of Kevin Spencer Kevin Spencer

Kevin Spencer focuses his practice on tax controversy issues. Kevin represents clients in complicated tax disputes in court and before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the IRS Appeals and Examination divisions. In addition to his tax controversy practice, Kevin has broad experience…

Kevin Spencer focuses his practice on tax controversy issues. Kevin represents clients in complicated tax disputes in court and before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the IRS Appeals and Examination divisions. In addition to his tax controversy practice, Kevin has broad experience advising clients on various tax issues, including tax accounting, employment and reasonable compensation, civil and criminal tax penalties, IRS procedures, reportable transactions and tax shelters, renewable energy, state and local tax, and private client matters. After earning his Master of Tax degree, Kevin had the privilege to clerk for the Honorable Robert P. Ruwe on the US Tax Court. Read Kevin Spencer’s full bio.

Photo of Philip Tingle Philip Tingle

 

Philip (Phil) Tingle represents energy companies such as utilities, independent power producers and financial institutions on a wide range of energy tax-related matters. He is the global head of the Firm’s Energy Advisory Practice Group. Phil provides advice regarding all aspects of…

 

Philip (Phil) Tingle represents energy companies such as utilities, independent power producers and financial institutions on a wide range of energy tax-related matters. He is the global head of the Firm’s Energy Advisory Practice Group. Phil provides advice regarding all aspects of renewable-energy projects, including tax equity structures, refinancings, acquisitions and dispositions, restructurings and workouts. He has extensive experience with the production tax credit and with the application of renewable credits to new technologies. Moreover, he works with the investment tax credit for numerous kinds of solar projects. Read Philip Tingle’s full bio.