Court Rejects Income Approach, Adopts Modified Cost Methodology in Major Section 1603 Dispute

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims on July 8, 2026, issued its long-awaited trial order on remand in Alta Wind I Owner Lessor C, et al. v. United States, resolving a 13-year dispute over approximately $1 billion in cash grants awarded under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The decision addresses a fundamental question in tax controversy and valuation practice: How should a court allocate purchase price among asset classes under the residual method of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1060 when the parties present competing valuation methodologies – and, critically, whether the anticipated value of a contingent tax benefit (here, the Section 1603 cash grant) may be included in the fair market value of the tangible assets whose basis determines that benefit.

The court's holding carries significant implications for taxpayers involved in renewable energy tax incentive disputes, Section 1060 purchase price allocations and any tax controversy in which income-based and cost-based valuation approaches compete.

Background and Procedural History

Section 1603 of ARRA provided eligible taxpayers with a cash grant equal to 30 percent of the "basis of the tangible personal property" of qualifying renewable energy facilities placed in service during the applicable period. The program was designed to incentivize renewable energy investment during the 2008 financial crisis by providing a direct cash payment in lieu of production or investment tax credits.

The Alta Wind facilities are six wind energy projects located in the Tehachapi region of California that were subject to 25-year power purchase agreements (PPAs) The plaintiffs applied for more than $703 million in Section 1603 grants using an "unallocated" basis method. The U.S. Department of the Treasury rejected that methodology and awarded approximately $495 million based on grant-eligible construction and development costs. The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 seeking the roughly $206 million difference; the government counterclaimed for an alleged overpayment of approximately $58.9 million.

At the first trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs the full $206 million, finding that the entire purchase price (minus land) constituted basis and that neither goodwill nor going-concern value attached to the transactions – and, therefore, that the residual method of IRC § 1060 did not apply.

The Federal Circuit's Remand Instructions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded in Alta Wind I Owner Lessor C v. United States, 897 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The appellate court held that the Alta transactions were "applicable asset acquisitions" under IRC § 1060 because three Treasury Department regulation factors were present: 1) intangible assets existed, 2) the total consideration exceeded the aggregate book value of the purchased assets and 3) related transactions (leases and licenses) were part of the deal. Accordingly, the purchase price had to be allocated among the seven asset classes prescribed by Treas. Reg. § 1.338-6(b) using the "residual method": consideration flows sequentially from Class I (cash) through Class V (all other tangible assets), then Class VI (Section 197 intangibles, excluding goodwill) and, finally, Class VII (goodwill and going-concern value). The parties had agreed that only classes V, VI and VII were at issue – and, thus, Class V (eligible) versus VI and VII (ineligible).

The Federal Circuit directed the trial court to make "a factual determination as to the allocation of purchase price" and specifically to "distinguish between turn-key value and goodwill and other intangibles." The court adopted the definition of "turn-key value" from Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. United States, 499 F.2d 677, 680 (Ct. Cl. 1974): The incremental value a buyer would pay for assurance that plant and equipment would work together without costly or time-consuming adjustments. Turnkey value is treated as part of Class V tangible assets, not as a separate intangible.

The Court's Key Holding

The court rejected the plaintiffs' income/discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation approach and held that the fair market value of the grant-eligible Class V tangible assets should be determined using the government's cost approach, as modified by the court to correct certain exclusions. Specifically, the court held:

• The plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the fair market value of grant-eligible tangible assets should include nearly 98 percent of the anticipated cash grant's value; the inclusion was impermissibly circular and unsupported by empirical market evidence.
• The anticipated Section 1603 cash grant value is not allocable to Class V tangible property under the Section 1060 residual method. The grant is a lump-sum reimbursement of eligible-asset costs, not itself a component of those assets' fair market value.
• The anticipated cash grant does not constitute "turn-key value" because the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the grant reflected the incremental value a buyer would pay for assurance that the facility's tangible assets would work together.
• The cost approach – starting from grant-eligible costs in the cost segregation reports, including interest during construction and the Oak Creek development fee, and applying a developer-profit markup (15 percent for Alta I and 20 percent for Alta II through VI) – best calculates the value of grant-eligible assets consistent with the Federal Circuit's remand instructions. This was a factual determination by the court.
• DCF is not inherently defective as a valuation methodology under Section 1060; the flaw in the plaintiffs' case was evidentiary, not methodological.

Significance for Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution

The Alta Wind decision carries broad significance for tax controversy practitioners beyond the Section 1603 context:

• Evidentiary Rigor in Valuation Disputes. The decision reinforces that in disputes governed by Section 1060's residual method, taxpayers bear a demanding evidentiary burden to support any valuation methodology with market-based, asset class-specific evidence – not merely theoretical financial models. Generalized assumptions about how income streams should be allocated among asset classes will not suffice where the record lacks empirical support for the specific allocation advanced – i.e. a factual inquiry, hence evidentiary, not a per se legal/methodological dispute.
• Circularity as a Fatal Flaw. The court's rejection of the plaintiffs' DCF approach on circularity grounds sends a clear signal: Where a valuation methodology uses the value of a tax benefit as an input to determine the basis on which that same benefit is calculated, courts will apply heightened scrutiny and demand affirmative evidence that the approach produces reliable, noncircular results.
• Cost Approaches Remain Powerful. The decision confirms that well-supported cost-based valuations – particularly those grounded in contemporaneous cost segregation studies prepared for regulatory or administrative purposes – can prevail over sophisticated income/DCF approaches, especially where the income methodology relies on assumptions that conflate distinct asset classes or attribute contingent benefits to tangible property without empirical market support.
• Consistency Across Proceedings Matters. The court's reliance on the plaintiffs' California property-tax filings – which characterized the cash grant as "separable and unrelated to the operations" – to undermine their litigation position underscores the enduring principle that inconsistent characterizations of asset or benefit values across different proceedings create significant litigation risk.
• DCF Is Not Per Se Improper Under Section 1060. Importantly, the court declined to adopt the government's broadest argument that DCF should never be applied in Section 1060 allocation disputes involving multiclass asset streams. The flaw was evidentiary, not methodological. This preserves room for well-supported DCF approaches in future disputes – but taxpayers must present rigorous, record-supported evidence connecting the income analysis to specific asset classes.

Holland & Knight's Energy Tax Team is available for questions regarding the guidance. To receive additional analysis from the team, please subscribe to our alerts.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.