IRS Rules That Some Basis in Solar System Must Be Allocated to Structural Functions

Nov 10, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

Here’s how the P.L.R. described the solar system made by the manufacturer:

Every component required to produce solar energy is attached to or housed in a [redacted text].  These [redacted text] are custom designed and are built specifically for the purposes of the solar energy systems.  They come in varying heights, specific to the solar access needs of each location... The broad bases house the major system operational components including wiring, conversion equipment, control equipment, and energy storage batteries.  These customized bases prevent the [redacted text], some of which have solar collection panels attached to the top, from blowing over in inclement weather.  The bases also include special locking doors, both for security, and so that the solar energy-producing equipment can readily maintained.

The P.L.R. went on to add that the parts that are not specifically related to solar energy “are not suitable to be used for purposes other than supporting the solar electricity generation equipment. . . .  The cost to produce these [redacted text] is much greater than the cost to produce ordinary [redacted text].”  Further, the taxpayer only sells whole systems, so it is not possible to purchase the non-solar parts separately from the solar parts.

In light of the foregoing language about the specialized nature of the equipment and the greater costs associated with the non-solar equipment, a reader of the P.L.R. might have been tempted to think that the IRS was going to rule that all of the basis was eligible for the investment tax credit.  However, such readers were soon disappointed as the IRS ruled that some portion of the basis must be allocated to the non-solar functions.

With respect to the non-solar functions, the P.L.R. concludes that due to the fact that some of the equipment provides

structural support for solar collectors, may also provide structural support for lights, surveillance equipment, motion detectors, two way transmission systems and other attachments not used for the generation of electricity from solar energy and will also protect the equipment from damaging weather and general degradation.  [The] taxpayer should allocate some portion of the basis of [redacted text] (to the extent it performs another function) to non-energy property.

The P.L.R. fails to answer a critical issue—what is the methodology for allocating the basis between investment tax credit and non-investment tax credit eligible basis?  Thus, taxpayers and their advisors are left guessing with respect how to perform this allocation.

Three years earlier, the I.R.S. reached a similar conclusion in P.L.R.201121005.  That ruling provides, the roof mounted solar power system

constitutes energy property under section 48(a)(3) except to the extent that Treasury Regulation section 1.48-9 requires that a portion of the basis of the property is allocable to any portion of such property that performs a function of a roof, e.g., protection from rain, snow, wind, sun, hot or cold temperatures or that provides structural support or insulation.

And, like its predecessor, the 2011 P.L.R. did not provide any guidance as to how to perform that allocation.

Solar companies should note that in this respect that the tax credit provided for in section 25D for homeowners who install solar on their own homes is actually more accommodating than the credit provided for in section 48 for investors in solar power systems.  Specifically, section 25D(e)(2) provides that “no expenditure relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof (or portion thereof) shall fail to be treated as [tax credit eligible] solely because it constitutes a structural component of the structure on which it is installed.” 

If this language from section 25D(e)(2) was in section 48 or the regulations thereunder, these two P.L.R.s would have had different holdings.  Thus, manufacturers of roof-mounted solar systems that have significant parts that serve a non-solar function may want to consider recommending that their residential customers borrow (or pay cash) to acquire the system, and then the residential customer can claim the tax credit under section 25D; that credit may be larger than the tax credit under section 48 after the allocation of basis to structural functions, as required by these P.L.R.s, that would be available to a solar company or a tax equity investor.


1 P.L.R. 201444025 (Oct. 31, 2014) (referencing Treas. Reg. § 1.48-9(d)).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

September 8, 2025

On September 4, 2025, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened a hearing to consider the nominations of Laura Swett and David LaCerte to serve as commissioners at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). Swett is a former FERC Staff that served as legal and policy advisor to former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Commission Bernard McNamee. LaCerte is an attorney in private practice that previously held positions at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 9, 2025

On August 29, 2025, Christopher Wright, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act), asking that FERC terminate its long-running proceeding in Docket No. PL18-1, which addresses proposed updates to its policy statement on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. The docket resulted in a draft policy statement that has never been finalized, nor relied upon by FERC in a published order, but would require FERC to consider environmental impacts and potential mitigation prior to making a public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The Secretary asks FERC to rescind the draft policy statement in its entirety to remove any uncertainty in gas infrastructure development. Rescission would require FERC to initiate a new docket and develop a new record should it want to reinitiate similar policy changes in the future.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2025

On June 4–5, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) hosted a commissioner-led technical conference to discuss resource adequacy challenges facing regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTO). The conference is a response to the growing concern that multiple RTO regions across the country may not have sufficient supply available in the coming years to meet demand due to resource retirements, the pace of new generation entry and higher load growth arising from the construction of data centers and reindustrialization.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2025

We are pleased to share the presentation slide deck and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating U.S. Policy Shifts in the Critical Minerals Sector.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 10, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced revisions to its procedures for pipeline safety enforcement actions. The changes, outlined in two new policy memoranda from PHMSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (PHC), aim to enhance due process protections for pipeline operators by clarifying how civil penalties are calculated and expanding the disclosure of agency records in enforcement proceedings.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.