- 11 -
energy credit. That is not sufficient to entitle petitioners to
claim the credit. Richter v. Commissioner, supra.
We conclude that HEH did not allocate income to petitioner
in 1996.
2. Whether Petitioner Received Income From HEH in 1996
Petitioners contend that, unlike the taxpayer in Richter,
HEH allocated income to petitioner and he received income from
HEH in 1996. We disagree. The SEP suggests that, in 1997, HELCO
paid HEH $800 for the installation of petitioner’s solar heating
system, and that HEH credited that amount towards petitioner’s
first payment under the SEP in 1997. It appears that the payment
was in 1997 and thus petitioner did not receive income (in the
form of a credit to his account) in 1996. Therefore, petitioner
did not receive income from HEH and thus is not entitled to claim
an energy tax credit in 1996.
We conclude that petitioners are not entitled to an energy
tax credit of $536 in 1996 by virtue of the $800 payment from
HELCO to HEH in 1997.
D. Conclusion
Based on Richter v. Commissioner, supra, and for the
additional reasons stated above, we conclude that no part of
HEH’s income was allocable to petitioner and that HEH did not
allocate any part of its investment in qualifying energy property
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011