Tax Court rules Section 179D deduction satisfied and successfully allocated


The Tax Court recently issued an opinion in Johnson, et. al. v. Commissioner (160 T.C. 2), holding that a taxpayer who designed and installed a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system for a governmental entity properly included the allocated Section 179D(a) deduction in its 2013 federal income tax return.


The taxpayer bringing the case had entered into a contract with the governmental entity to maintain, inspect and update the HVAC system. The taxpayer worked with South Side — a control and parts distributor for commercial HVAC contractors — to install the new system. Subsequently, the taxpayer obtained an allocation letter from an authorized representative of the property owner, which provided that the full federal income tax deduction available under Section 179D attributable to the HVAC system was allocated to the taxpayer.


The taxpayer claimed the deduction on its 2013 federal income tax return and provided the allocation letter and the necessary certification to satisfy the requirements of Section 179D. However, the IRS denied the deduction and the taxpayer brought the issue to the Tax Court for resolution.


Although the court held that the taxpayer satisfied the statutory requirements and was entitled to the deduction, the IRS asserted several arguments of which three were noteworthy. First, the IRS asserted that the taxpayer failed to satisfy one of the requirements under Section 179D(c)(1)(D) that the installation of the HVAC was “part of a plan” for energy efficiency because the property owner did not have specific intent and forethought to achieve the energy saving targets when updating the system but instead did so as an emergency replacement. The Court dismissed this argument by stating that nothing in the statute nor subsequent guidance requires taxpayers to provide a statement with respect to intent and forethought with the required certification; deductions under Section 179D do not provide for specific preparation or proof of planning to satisfy the necessary requirements.


Second, the IRS asserted that the taxpayer was not the “designer” and entitled to the allocation of the deduction because it was only responsible for the maintenance and that the majority of the installation and upgrades were performed by South Side, whom the IRS considered to be the “designer” entitled to allocation. The Tax Court classified the IRS’ assertion as an overstatement; further, the taxpayer’s programming modification, technical specifications, providing of estimates for the replacement and installation of new equipment could reasonably establish it as the “designer” and South Side’s assistance as a subcontractor at the taxpayer’s discretion did not invalidate its “designer” status.


Third, the IRS attempted to assert that the allocation letter was insufficient in describing the amount of the Section 179D deduction allocated to the taxpayer. The letter provided to the taxpayer indicated that it was allocated “the full amount” of the deduction, and the court agreed that was sufficient to establish the allocation in accordance with the statute, even if the specific dollar amount was not included.


The arguments the IRS asserted are items to consider when taxpayers are looking at any potential risk when claiming a deduction under Section 179D — especially as a designer. Taxpayers seeking to claim a Section 179D deduction after 2022 should refer to the most recent guidance in Notice 2022-61, as well as our recent story, “IRS starts clock on wage and apprenticeship rules” for necessary requirements to receive the expanded benefit of current energy deductions.




Tax professional standards statement

This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “§,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


More tax hot topics