Seth wrote:
- quote -

Ah, THAT makes sense: If a rebate/credit was taxed, then
it's inappropriate to use it to decrease the basis.

Since the CA tax credit was federally taxed, then perhaps
the federal basis for the house is higher (by the amount of
the credit) than the CA basis.

Thanks for the insight!

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rlsusenet[at]NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org wrote:
- quote -

Well, things ARE slow sometimes with the bulletin board(s).

But yes, I'll agree with you; basis being 16.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rlsusenet[at]NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org <NoSuchPerson[at]bigfoot.com> wrote:

- quote -

What were the federal tax implications?

If the CEC rebate isn't taxable, then it reduces the
increase in basis.

The CA income tax credit _is_ federally taxable, so I don't
know; it should reduce the CA basis, but not the federal
basis (or perhaps reduce the federal basis by its after-tax
value).

Seth

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

rlsusenet[at]NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org wrote:

- quote -

Nobody wants to venture an opinion? Really?

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Around 3 AM, it occurred to me that I don't know the answer
to this question, and I'll need to know it eventually:

We put a solar electric (PV) system on our home in 2001.
Say it cost around $33k. This is in California, and the CA
Energy Commission reimbursed us around $14k. And then we
got another $3k CA income tax credit.

So my question is this: By how much did our cost basis go up?
$16k? (both CEC rebate and tax credit count)
$19k? (tax credit doesn't count)
$30k? (CEC rebate doesn't count)
$33k? (neither rebate nor credit count)

I've been assuming that the number is $16k, since that's what I'm
out-of-pocket. Any other opinions?

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >