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
--
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: [email protected]
Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
