Electric vehicles: Convergence of the industry

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

The Investment Tax Credit and Residential Energy Credit were originally established to promote investment in renewable energies. These credits are available to taxpayers who install solar equipment to generate electricity for either a commercial or residential property. The credits have different origins within the Internal Revenue Code but are very similar with respect to how they are calculated. 

The starting point is to determine what property is eligible, typically by reviewing the equipment, materials, and labor costs. Qualified property is defined within the Code and while there are several years of judicial history further clarifying what is eligible, there is one unsettled question routinely asked: Can we include the entire cost of a roof replacement?

To answer that question, we look to each of the separate Code sections establishing the credits, Section 48–Commercial Energy Credit and Section 25D–Residential Energy Credit. The credits afforded by these sections are available for a variety of renewable energy properties, but for this discussion we will focus specifically on the solar property provisions.

Solar property provisions

The Section 48 definition of qualified property includes “equipment which uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a structure, or to provide solar process heat….” The regulations further define solar energy property as “equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, and includes storage devices, power conditioning equipment, transfer equipment, and parts relating to the functioning of those items.” 

Essentially, all costs to acquire and install the equipment used to generate electricity to the point of either transmitting it or consuming it would be eligible for the credit.

Section 48 Regulations state that building and structural components generally are not qualified property for the credit. An exception was provided by Revenue Ruling 79-183, allowing structural components to the extent that they are specifically engineered to be part of the machinery and equipment. Two significant private letter rulings have also been issued to address whether a roof would be treated as qualified solar property based on these limitations, and to what extent.

In PLR 201121005, issued in May 2011, the IRS ruled that the roof was qualified property but the qualified cost did not include the portion that performs the normal functions of a roof. This follows Regulation Section 1.48-9(k) that only permits the “incremental cost” over what would have been spent if the roof were replaced with no qualified property. The facts in this ruling did not include the type of solar power system and how it was integrated with the roof which left many questions unanswered until PLR 201523014 was issued in June 2015.

The 2015 ruling addressed solar property that included a reflective roof membrane to generate electricity from the underside of the roof mounted solar panels. The reflective roof was clearly integrated to the solar power system and the process of generating electricity. The IRS again ruled that qualified property included only the portion of the reflective roof that exceeded the cost of reroofing the building with a non-reflective roof.

The IRS has consistently held that only the “incremental cost” of the roof installation may qualify as solar energy property if it is integrated with the machinery and equipment. 

The Section 25D definition of qualified expenses includes “property which uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a residence by the taxpayer.” The Section identifies qualified costs for labor and solar panels and specifically states, “no expenditure relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof (or portion thereof) shall fail to be treated as qualified property solely because it constitutes a structural component…”

Unlike the Section 48 Commercial Energy Credit, the Section 25D Residential Energy Credit has little guidance on whether the entire cost of a roof would be allowed as qualified solar property. If the IRS were consistent in application, they would follow the “incremental cost” regulations that apply to non-residential projects.

Determining qualifying machinery and equipment costs is critical to maximizing the commercial or residential energy credit. 

BerryDunn has the expertise to review the project costs and provide a cost certification for what qualifies. We can identify any portion of the roof that may be eligible. If you have questions or would like to discuss whether there may be an opportunity for your project, please don’t hesitate to call us.
 

Editor's note: Read this if you are a current or future owner of solar or other renewable energy equipment, or a solar investor, developer, or installer.

Maine LD 1430: An opportunity for businesses with solar energy systems

In 2019, Maine passed bill LD 1430, which introduces a solar tax exemption for both business and residential owners enabling renewable energy adopters to save money―while adding real value to their property and assets. As our experience in Massachusetts has shown, eligible businesses should take advantage of these types of laws, as you can reduce your property tax assessment by the value of your solar or wind energy equipment.  

Let’s look at a simple example assuming a $20 mill rate and a business owner who owns land and installs a large commercial solar energy system on it to meet the electrical demand of his business:   

Standardized valuation methodology provides clear guidance for taxpayers

In December, the Maine Revenue Service expanded on the bill by providing standardized solar valuation methodology. It provides much-needed guidance to municipalities on how to assess property tax on solar equipment, helps prevent over taxation of businesses, and streamlines the process for applying for the solar property tax exemption. 

Solar tax exempt laws in other states

Maine was not the first state to enact this type of legislation to help improve renewable energy adoption in the commercial space, nor will it be the last. Massachusetts, among others, has a similar law on the books, which allows for an exemption on solar or wind equipment used to supply the energy needs of a taxable property. Over the past few years, many of our clients in Massachusetts have taken advantage of the exemption, and have saved thousands of dollars doing so. 

Not surprisingly, Massachusetts has seen strong growth in renewable energy in the commercial sector. According to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Massachusetts went from a few hundred solar energy systems in 2006 to nearly 100,000 in 2018. Other states have also enacted this type of legislation. In fact, all but 12 states have enacted some form of solar tax exemption laws.  

Looking ahead

This law and others like it will continue to help renewable energy projects get off the ground. As the number of solar projects increases, so too does the ability to create more opportunity. 

We’ve been working with Massachusetts providers for many years, helping our clients grow as the market has been maturing. For more information on how we can help you in Maine (or other states) take advantage of these exemptions, please contact the renewable energy team.  

The Maine Revenue Service is planning to release a standard application for the property tax exemption in the coming weeks. Please stay tuned for updates.  

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

After a recent article where we highlighted some of the major points of the ITC safe harbor, we received many calls and e-mails looking for clarification on some of the related issues. In working to answer these questions we teamed up with Klavens Law Group, P.C., a Boston law firm that specializes in clean energy. Together with Brendan Beasley and Jon Klavens we have compiled a list of frequently asked questions that may be helpful as you navigate the last few weeks of the year. 

Q: My project is not ready for construction due to a pending decision on a land use permit. How can I minimize capital expenditure while still qualifying the project for the 5% safe harbor?
A: There are a couple approaches you as a taxpayer can take. First, if this project is among several in your portfolio, you can pay or incur expenses prior to December 31, 2019 for enough safe harbor equipment under a single binding contract to qualify each project in your portfolio and retain flexibility to allocate that equipment. Applying the master contract approach (per Section 7.03(2) of IRS Notice 2018-59), you would then transfer equipment, even after December 31, 2019, to affiliate special purpose entities under a second binding contract. Second, you can enter into a binding contract that is subject to a condition, applying section (ii)(B) of the “binding contract” definition at 26 CFR Section 1.168(k)-1(b)(4). In this case, the condition would be the project receiving the land use permits and clearing any related appeals period. Under this approach you would still need to pay or incur―or have your EPC contractor pay or incur under the look-through rule―at least 5% of the project’s depreciable cost basis by December 31, 2019. A limitation on this approach is that, if the condition is not likely to be satisfied within three-and-a-half months of the date of your binding contract, either you or your EPC contractor (applying the look-through rule) must take delivery of the equipment while the condition―and presumably the viability of the project―is still open and uncertain. 

Q: Can I finance a purchase of safe harbor equipment for my project?
A: Yes; however, you can’t use vendor financing. 

Q: I have a project that will be ready to construct in Q2 2020. The project company will execute a binding EPC agreement by December 31, 2019 that includes a procurement component. It will make an initial milestone payment of 7% upon execution. Does my project qualify for the 5% safe harbor?
A: Maybe. There is not enough information here to confirm. As taxpayer you must pay or incur expenses amounting to at least 5% of the total cost of the energy property prior to December 31, 2019, and must take delivery within three-and-a-half months from the date of payment under your binding contract. So the critical question here is what your EPC contractor is doing with that 7% payment. Here are some possible outcomes:

• The EPC contractor purchases inverters on December 31, 2019 pursuant to a binding contract with a vendor. Applying the look-through rule, the safe harbor is satisfied.
• The EPC contractor self-constructs a specialized racking system in January 2020, per your EPC agreement, and delivers it to you within three-and-a-half months of the binding contract. The safe harbor is satisfied.
• The EPC contractor prepares 10% construction drawings and applies for a building permit, each at nominal cost, and holds your 7% payment while waiting for module prices to come down. The safe harbor is not satisfied.
• The EPC contractor allocates its previously purchased inverters to your project, per your EPC agreement, holding them in its warehouse until May 2020 before delivering them to your site. The safe harbor is likely satisfied. Applying the look-through rule, the EPC contractor’s purchase of the inverters pursuant to a binding contract in 2019 (even if prior to the EPC agreement) will qualify the inverters for safe harbor purposes. The EPC contractor must take steps to identify and segregate the particular inverters within its warehouse.

Q: Can I sell safe-harbored equipment?
A: The buyer of your equipment (unless it is an affiliate) may not utilize the safe harbor unless you are selling the equipment together with the solar project. If, for example, your sale also includes a site lease and a PPA, the purchaser would receive the benefit of the safe harbor. In certain circumstances, you may also be able to become an affiliate of a project LLC by acquiring a membership interest of at least 20% and make an in-kind contribution of the safe-harbored equipment to the project LLC.           

Q: Can I satisfy the physical work test by building roads within my site?
A: Yes; however, the roads must be integral to the energy property. An access road would likely not be interpreted as integral to the property. However, roads used for purposes of operations and maintenance activity―within the area of the facility itself―are considered integral to the energy property.

Q: What constitutes work of a physical nature?
A: This is really open to the facts and circumstances interpretation. The IRS notice instructions referenced previously indicate some specific activities that do not qualify, but there is no quantification of how much of a qualifying activity must be done in order to satisfy the safe harbor requirement. Preliminary planning and site work do not count. But starting construction would, so you could satisfy the requirement with excavation for a foundation, drilling for moorings, pouring concrete, etc. The best bet would be to actually put up a section of panels.

Q: What is the continuing work requirement?
A: There is an additional safe harbor that says if your project is placed in service within four years of the end of the calendar year in which you started it you will have automatically met the continuous work requirement. If your project goes beyond that you will need to show facts and circumstances showing you were taking steps to continue working towards completing the project. For example, if the delay was due to a delay in getting interconnected, be prepared to show documentation that you were continuously working towards resolving that issue.

Unless there are changes to the current tax law, these same provisions will be in effect for each step of the phase-out through the end of 2023. If you have further questions, please contact a member of our renewable energy team. 

Please note that this Q&A, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Klavens Law Group, P.C. or its attorneys. Please seek the services of a competent professional if you need legal or other professional assistance.

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

With December well under way, thoughts turn to year-end and tax filing preparation. While we get many questions this time of year related to changes in the tax law and what taxpayers can do before the end of the year to minimize their tax burden, different this year is the impending phase-out of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Residential Energy Credit (REC) from 30% to 26%. 

Last month, we gave some pointers on the safe harbor provision available for the Investment Tax Credit which would allow qualifying projects to still be eligible for the 30% credit after the end of the year. No such provision exists for the residential credit, however, and any project not complete by 12/31/19 (and completed in 2020) will receive the reduced 26% credit.

The phase-out was designed to coincide with the projected decline in solar costs, and would help smooth the transition to a market where solar competes directly with fossil fuels for energy production. Since then, we have seen component costs increase due to artificially inflated prices resulting from the tariffs imposed on imported goods. This results in a mismatch on the timing of the phase-out to the cost of the materials, a still immature market for solar, and a missed opportunity. Enter a new bill in the House of Representatives.

Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now Act

On November 19, 2019 Chairman Thompson of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee released a discussion draft of a bill titled the Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (“GREEN”) Act. This draft bill is not ready for a vote yet, but does promote an extension and/or expansion of tax incentives for taxpayers investing in cleantech. With the GREEN Act, solar investors, installers, and other related businesses would benefit from:

• Revival and extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) through 2024
• Delay of the ITC and REC phaseout until 2024
• Expansion of the ITC to include additional technologies, most notably energy storage
• A provision allowing the taxpayer to receive the ITC or PTC as a refund in the year it is claimed for 15% reduction in the value of the credit

A delay in the phase-out would allow time for the costs of components to return to pre-tariff levels and help achieve the original intention of the phase-out. The expansion of the ITC to include energy storage would be a huge boon to that emerging market, and provide an additional incentive for consumers to install storage on an existing project―creating a more efficient energy grid. 

Currently, due to accelerated depreciation, many taxpayers are not able to take the ITC or PTC in the first year due to not having a tax to offset. Allowing for the option to treat the ITC or PTC as a tax payment (which can be refunded) instead of a credit (which can’t) would help investors realize their return much faster and free up capital to invest in other projects. 

Some of these provisions are fairly aggressive, and it is unlikely that they will all remain as they are now in any future passed legislation. However, it is promising to see the House of Representatives considering these types of extensions and expansions when it comes to clean energy incentives. As renewable energy is still a relatively new and rapidly changing marketplace, this is a prime time for renewable energy professionals to keep representatives informed of what they need to help the industry continue to grow. 

Read this if you are a solar investor, developer, or installer.

The solar carve out of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) has been a great incentive for taxpayers to invest in solar assets over the last several years. It established an increased 30% tax credit for solar assets placed in service, up from the normal 10%. 

Starting January 1, 2020, the solar carve out will begin to phase out and will return to 10% by January 1, 2024. 

With the first phase-out of the ITC set to drop the credit from 30% to 26% after December 31, 2019, many taxpayers are evaluating ways to make sure their project still qualifies for the 30% credit. The IRS has issued two safe harbor provisions (IRS Notice 2018-59) to allow for projects placed in service after December 31, 2019 and before January 1, 2024 to still qualify for the 30% credit, but timing is key and certain actions must be taken before midnight on December 31, 2019.

Safe harbor methods

The two safe harbor methods are the Physical Work Test and the Five Percent of Cost Test. If a project satisfies either of these tests it can still qualify for the 30% tax credit as long as it is completed and in service before January 1, 2024.

The Physical Work Test requires that the taxpayer performs, or has performed on their behalf, “work of a significant nature” on the project prior to December 31, 2019. This is a little open to interpretation, but generally involves physical construction of the asset, such as the installation of mounting equipment, rails, racking, inverters, or even the panels themselves. Purchasing of equipment generally held in inventory by either the taxpayer or the vendor does not qualify. However, if the equipment is customized or specially designed for the specific project, it might. Preliminary activities do not qualify, which include planning, designing, surveying, and permitting. 

In general, the purpose of this test is to prove that construction has already begun, and is in place to help projects that have been started but won’t be in service before year end still maintain the 30% tax credit. Projects that are substantially complete and waiting for an interconnection or a permission to operate in order to be considered as in service will most easily qualify for this safe harbor test.

The Five Percent of Cost Test is a little more straightforward, and is likely to be more commonly used to qualify projects for the safe harbor provision as the end of the year deadline approaches. This test requires at least five percent of the total project cost be paid or incurred before December 31, 2019. It is important to note that the denominator in this test is the final total cost of the project when it goes in service. The taxpayer may wish to pay more than the five percent to account for project overruns or unanticipated changes to the project in order to make sure they maintain the qualification for safe harbor. 

Another consideration is if the taxpayer files on the cash or accrual method as to whether the project cost needs to be paid or incurred in order to satisfy the chosen filing method.

In either case, the taxpayer should also evaluate the cost of prepaying for equipment that may decrease in cost in the future, compared to the benefit they will receive in maintaining the additional four percent of the tax credit that can safe harbor from the phase out. 

Additionally, an analysis of total project costs and eligible vs. ineligible ITC costs early on in project development can help identify how best to spend the cash before the end of the year, and ensure that the taxpayer receives the return they require once the project goes into service.

Have questions?

If you have questions on these safe harbors or need more information, please contact the green tax experts on our renewable energy team. 

Editor’s note: read this if you are a Maine business owner or officer.

New state law aligns with federal rules for partnership audits

On June 18, 2019, the State of Maine enacted Legislative Document 1819, House Paper 1296, An Act to Harmonize State Income Tax Law and the Centralized Partnership Audit Rules of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Just like it says, LD 1819 harmonizes Maine with updated federal rules for partnership audits by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself. It also establishes new rules for who can—and can’t—represent a partnership in audit proceedings, and what that representative’s powers are.

Classic tunes—The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

Until recently, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) set federal standards for IRS audits of partnerships and those entities treated as partnerships for income tax purposes (LLCs, etc.). Those rules changed, however, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). Changes made by the BBA and PATH Act included:

• Replacing the Tax Matters Partner (TMP) with a Partnership Representative (PR);
• Generally establishing the partnership, and not individual partners, as liable for any imputed underpayment resulting from an audit, meaning current partners can be held responsible for the tax liabilities of past partners; and
• Imputing tax on the net audit adjustments at the highest individual or corporate tax rates.

Unlike TEFRA, the BBA and PATH Act granted Partnership Representatives sole authority to act on behalf of a partnership for a given tax year. Individual partners, who previously held limited notification and participation rights, were now bound by their PR’s actions.

Fresh beats—new tax liability laws under LD 1819

LD 1819 echoes key provisions of the BBA and PATH Act by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself and replacing the Tax Matters Partner with a Partnership Representative.

Eligibility requirements for PRs are also less than those for TMPs. PRs need only demonstrate “substantial presence in the US” and don’t need to be a partner in the partnership, e.g., a CFO or other person involved in the business. Additionally, partnerships may have different PRs at the federal and state level, provided they establish reasonable qualifications and procedures for designating someone other than the partnership’s federal-level PR to be its state-level PR.

LD 1819 applies to Maine partnerships for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. Any additional tax, penalties, and/or interest arising from audit are due no later than 180 days after the IRS’ final determination date, though some partnerships may be eligible for a 60-day extension. In addition, LD 1819 requires Maine partnerships to file a completed federal adjustments report.

Partnerships should review their partnership agreements in light of these changes to ensure the goals of the partnership and the individual partners are reflected in the case of an audit. 

Remix―Significant changes coming to the Maine Capital Investment Credit 

Passage of LD 1671 on July 2, 2019 will usher in a significant change to the Maine Capital Investment Credit, a popular credit which allows businesses to claim a tax credit for qualifying depreciable assets placed in service in Maine on which federal bonus depreciation is claimed on the taxpayer's federal income tax return. 

Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, the credit is reduced to a rate of 1.2%. This is a significant reduction in the current credit percentages, which are 9% and 7% for corporate and all other taxpayers, respectively. The change intends to provide fairness to companies conducting business in-state over out-of-state counterparts. Taxpayers continue to have the option to waive the credit and claim depreciation recapture in a future year for the portion of accelerated federal bonus depreciation disallowed by Maine in the year the asset is placed in service. 

As a result of this meaningful reduction in the credit, taxpayers who have historically claimed the credit will want to discuss with their tax advisors whether it makes sense to continue claiming the credit for 2020 and beyond.
 

A common pitfall for inbound sellers is applying the same concepts used to adopt “no tax” positions made for federal income tax purposes to determinations concerning sales and use tax compliance. Although similar conceptually, separate analyses are required for each determination.

For federal income tax purposes, inbound sellers that are selling goods to customers in the U.S. and do not have a fixed place of business or dependent agent in the U.S. have, traditionally, been able to rely on their country’s income tax treaty with the U.S. for “no tax” positions. Provided that the non-U.S. entity did not have a “permanent establishment” in the U.S., it was shielded from federal income tax and would have a limited federal income tax compliance obligation.

States, however, are generally not bound by comprehensive income tax treaties made with the U.S. Thus, non-U.S. entities can find themselves unwittingly subject to state and local sales and use tax compliance obligations even though they are protected from a federal income tax perspective. With recent changes in U.S. tax law, the burden of complying with sales and use tax filing and collection requirements has increased significantly.

Does your company have a process in place to deal with these new state and local tax compliance obligations?

What has changed? Wayfair—it’s got what a state needs

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., non-U.S. entities that have sales to customers in the U.S. may have unexpected sales and use tax filing obligations on a go-forward basis. Historically, non-U.S. entities did not have a sales and use tax compliance obligation when they did not have a physical presence in states where the sales occurred.

In Wayfair, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state is no longer bound by the physical presence standard in order for it to impose its sales and use tax regime on entities making sales within the state. The prior physical presence standard was set forth in precedent established by the Supreme Court and was used to determine if an entity had sufficient connection with a state (i.e., nexus) to necessitate a tax filing and collection requirement.

Before the Wayfair ruling, an entity had to have a physical presence (generally either through employees or property located in a state) in order to be deemed to have nexus with the state. The Wayfair ruling overturned this precedent, eliminating the physical presence requirement. Now, a state can deem an entity to have nexus with the state merely for exceeding a certain level of sales or transactions with in-state customers. This is a concept referred to as “economic nexus.”

The Court in Wayfair determined that the state law in South Dakota providing a threshold of $100,000 in sales or more than 200 sale transactions occurring within the state is sufficient for economic nexus to exist with the state. This is good news for hard-pressed states and municipalities in search of more revenue. Since this ruling, there has been a flurry of new state legislation across the country. Like South Dakota, states are actively passing tax laws with similar bright-line tests to determine when entities have economic nexus and, therefore, a sales and use tax collection and filing requirement.

How this impacts non-U.S. entities

This can be a trap for non-U.S. entities making sales to customers in the U.S. Historically, non-U.S. entities lacking a U.S. physical presence generally only needed to navigate federal income tax rules.

Inbound sellers without a physical presence in the U.S. may have very limited experience with state and local tax compliance obligations. When considering all of the state and local tax jurisdictions that exist in the U.S. (according to the Tax Foundation there are more than 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions), the number of sales and use tax filing obligations can be significant. Depending on the level of sales activity within the U.S., a non-U.S. entity can quickly become inundated with the time and cost of sales and use tax compliance.

Next steps

Going forward, non-U.S. entities selling to customers in the U.S. should be aware of those states that have economic nexus thresholds and adopt procedures so they are prepared for their sales and use tax compliance obligations in real time. These tax compliance obligations will generally require an entity to register to do business in the state, collect sales tax from customers, and file regular tax returns, usually monthly or quarterly.

It is important to note when an entity has an obligation to collect sales tax, it will be liable for any sales tax due to a state, regardless of whether the sales tax is actually collected from the customer. It is imperative to stay abreast of these complex legislative changes in order to be compliant.

At BerryDunn, our tax professionals work with a number of non-U.S. companies that face international, state, and local tax issues. If you would like to discuss your particular circumstances, contact one of the experienced professionals in our state and local tax (“SALT”) practice.