§136 — Energy conservation subsidies provided by public utilities

15 cases·1 questioned·2 overruled·12 cited

(a)Exclusion

Gross income shall not include the value of any subsidy provided (directly or indirectly) by a public utility to a customer for the purchase or installation of any energy conservation measure.

(b)Denial of double benefit

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, no deduction or credit shall be allowed for, or by reason of, any expenditure to the extent of the amount excluded under subsection (a) for any subsidy which was provided with respect to such expenditure. The adjusted basis of any property shall be reduced by the amount excluded under subsection (a) which was provided with respect to such property.

(c)Energy conservation measure
(1)In general

For purposes of this section, the term “energy conservation measure” means any installation or modification primarily designed to reduce consumption of electricity or natural gas or to improve the management of energy demand with respect to a dwelling unit.

(2)Other definitions

For purposes of this subsection—

(A)Dwelling unit

The term “dwelling unit” has the meaning given such term by section 280A(f)(1).

(B)Public utility

The term “public utility” means a person engaged in the sale of electricity or natural gas to residential, commercial, or industrial customers for use by such customers. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “person” includes the Federal Government, a State or local government or any political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

(d)Exception

This section shall not apply to any payment to or from a qualified cogeneration facility or qualifying small power production facility pursuant to section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978.

15 Citing Cases

67 (2011). - 18 - [*18] misstatement penalty has been satisfied. The only remaining question is whether that is enough for the penalty under section 6662 to apply here. Eric argues that it isn't, because RB-1 showed reasonable cause and acted in good faith by relying on professional advice from J&G and W&T. The Commissioner says that RB

Petitioner’s other argument is that an IRA is a grantor trust that qualifies as an S corporation shareholder under section 136 l(c)(2)(A)(i), which provides that eligible S corporation shareholders include “A trust all of which is treated (under subpart E of part I of subchapter J of this chapter) as owned by an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States.” Respondent argues that “an IRA custodial account is very different” from the custodial a

Addison v. Seaver 540 F.3d 805 · Cir.
Lance Addison v. Randall Seaver · Cir.
United States v. Ernst Jacob GmbH & Co. KG · Cir.
Induni v. Commissioner 98 T.C. 618 · 1992
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Commissioner 84 T.C. 447 · 1985
Crane v. Commissioner 49 T.C. 85 · 1967
Reighley v. Commissioner 17 T.C. 344 · 1951
Washington Leg Fdn v. Texas Equal Access, e 293 F.3d 242 · Cir.
Electrical Welfare Trust Fund v. United States 907 F.3d 165 · Cir.
Silva v. Garland 27 F.4th 95 · Cir.
United States v. E.R.R. 35 F.4th 405 · Cir.