Chiple v. Commissioner
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLIAMS,
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
This Court recently considered and upheld the validity of this regulation in
*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.
To reflect the foregoing,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1986 T.C. Memo. 114 (Chiple v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.