State tax filing

First, I appreciate the effort you put into your responses but I continue to respectfully disagree with your assessment.  So let's read 26 U.S. Code § 25D. Residential energy efficient property and look at (d)(2) which states: "Qualified solar electric property expenditure.  The term 'qualified solar electric property expenditure' means an expenditure for property which uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a residence by the taxpayer".  This is pretty straight forward and if I use this as the basis then clearly a roof cannot be included.  HOWEVER, (e)(2) then states as a special rule, "(2) Solar panels.  No expenditure relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof (or portion thereof) shall fail to be treated as property described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d) solely because it constitutes a structural component of the structure on which it is installed".  

Now you have previously argued that the special section is labeled "Solar Panels" ... this does not explain why the first sentence states, "No expenditure relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof ...".  The sentence starts with relating to a solar panel and then amends this with the phrase OR other property installed as a roof which makes it clear that the roof which is a structural component on which the panels are installed cannot be excluded simply because the roof is a structural component.  Since the word solar panel is specifically called out at the start of the sentence then it follows that the "or other property" is NOT a solar panel which then implies that "this other property" does not generate electricity but is used solely as a structural component and thus cannot be excluded solely on the grounds that it is a structural component.  I have read this sentence a thousand times and I find no flaw in my interpretation especially given the structure of the sentence itself.  I also searched for any case law on any audits/cases that occurred which resulted in a claim for a roof replacement being denied when it was done and claimed as part of the Solar tax credit.  I find this in of itself to be rather interesting and telling.  If you have any evidence to show that the IRS has audited and denied the roof replacement portion of the claim then please do share that.  In the absence of this, I strongly urge people to not be scared into throwing away a significant deduction OR into claiming this deduction because of someone's opinion.  Read the code and then ask your tax lawyer what they think AND then challenge them by countering with the arguments I have put up or if your lawyer agrees with me, then what the other poster has posted.  After you have more information then make a decision for what you believe to be correct.  As for me, I plan to claim the roof replacement cost I will incur when I do my solar project as part of the tax credit and if I get audited, I believe I have the interpretation correct and I will win any audit.

Lastly, your private ruling example has no place in this argument since your example is about the disallowing of a condenser.  A condenser is not part of any structural component and is not a solar panel so it is obvious to me that it cannot be included.   However, this does not in any way imply that this logic extends to a roof as a roof is a structural component and according to (e)(2) cannot be solely excluded because it is structural in nature only.  I am strongly of the opinion that the special section was specifically added to include structural components since (d)(2) is otherwise quite clear what is permitted or not and the debate centers around what (e)(2) means and how it amends (d)(2).

Best regards and respectfully submitted