|Good points TED. And I also would like to point people to this statement from the official complaint: "the lenses and the facility do not and will not produce solar energy that could be collected and used for any purpose that Congress intended to encourage through tax credits"|
Who thinks that congress intended these tax credits to work in such a way that people could eliminate their tax liability and yet not generate any taxable income out of that investment for "many, many" years?
Typically, whenever Congress gives someone a tax break, it is for one of two reasons:
1) to pay off their buddies who donated money to their campaigns
2) so that the entity who benefits can make more money, thus paying more taxes in the future (and the future not being 20 years away, like IAUS)
Which of these 2 purposes does IAUS serve? Neither IMO. So, not what Congress intended, so no deal -> IAUS loses.