Chiple v. Commissioner

1986 T.C. Memo. 114, 51 T.C.M. 671, 1986 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 491
United States Tax Court·Decided March 24, 1986·No. Docket No. 37309-84.·Unpublished

Opinion

MICHAEL ANTHONY AND CYNTHIA M. CHIPLE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Chiple v. Commissioner
Docket No. 37309-84.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1986-114; 1986 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 491; 51 T.C.M. (CCH) 671; T.C.M. (RIA) 86114;
March 24, 1986.
Michael A. and Cynthia M. Chiple, pro se.
Steven M. Walk, for the respondent.

WILLIAMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAMS, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121. 1 There are no genuine issues of material fact and summary judgment is appropriate.

The Commissioner determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income taxes for the taxable year 1981 of $2,924.42. The sole issue which we must determine is whether equipment purchased and installed by petitioners qualifies for a residential energy income tax credit as geothermal*492 renewable energy source property.

The facts of this case have been fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122 and are so found. Petitioners resided in Wadsworth, Ohio at the time their petition was filed.

Petitioners installed a Thermal Energy Trnasfer Corporation (TETCO) "Geothermal Ground-Water Heat Extractor" in their principal residence, in the United States, in 1981. Petitioners' equipment used as its energy source underground water which had a relatively constant year round temperature of 11.1 degrees Celsius. Petitioner reported $7,311.06 as geothermal renewable energy source costs on their joint income tax return for which they claimed an income tax credit of $2,924.42 pursuant to section 44C. 2

*493 The sole point of controversy in this case concerns the validity of the temperature limitation of section 1.44C-2(h), Income Tax Regs. This section of respondent's regulations defines "geothermal deposit," for purposes of section 44C(c)(5)(A)(i), as a geothermal reservoir which has a temperature exceeding 50 degrees Celsius measured at the wellhead. Section 1.44C-2(h), Income Tax Regs. Petitioners contest the validity of this regulation, arguing that it is arbitrary and inconsistent with Congressional intent.

This Court recently considered and upheld the validity of this regulation in Peach v. Commissioner,84 T.C. 1312 (1985), on facts indistinguishable from those of the present case. 3 We find that our holding in Peach squarely applies to this case, and on this basis we hold that petitioners' equipment fails to qualify as geothermal renewable energy source property within the meaning of section 44C(c)(5). Petitioners' claim for a residential energy income tax credit based on their purchase and installation of the TETCO "Geothermal Ground-Water Heat Extractor" was thus properly disallowed by respondent. 4

*494 Petitioners claim in the alternative that their equipment qualifies as a "Geosolar System, employing solar pond collection system." The stipulation of facts, however, declares that petitioners' equipment uses underground water as its energy source. Section 1.44C-2(f), Income Tax Regs., defining solar energy property, specifically excludes heated underground water from the scope of its definition. On this basis we hold that petitioners' equipment does not qualify as solar energy property within the meaning of section 44C(c)(5).

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be enetered for the respondent.


Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chiple v. Commissioner, 1986 T.C. Memo. 114, 51 T.C.M. 671, 1986 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 491 (tax 1986).

1986 T.C. Memo. 114 (Chiple v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peach v. Commissioner
84 T.C. No. 72 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)