This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a tax case and one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. United States (Precedential)

California Ridge Wind Energy LLC and Bishop Hill Energy LLC each own a windfarm that was put into service in 2012. Thereafter, each company applied for a cash grant from the federal government, based on specified energy-project costs, under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 306, 364. The United States Department of the Treasury awarded California Ridge and Bishop Hill less than the amounts they had requested, rejecting as unjustified the full amounts of certain development fees included in the submitted cost bases. Each windfarm owner sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the difference between the amounts they had been paid and the amounts allegedly mandated by section 1603. The government counterclaimed, alleging that it had actually overpaid the two firms.

The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the government. California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 757, 763 (2019); Bishop Hill Energy, LLC v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 540, 545 (2019). The sole issue on appeal is whether the two firms proved that their proposed development fees, in the amounts asserted, were properly included in their cost bases. The trial court held that they did not. California Ridge, 143 Fed. Cl. at 762–63. California Ridge and Bishop Hill appeal on that issue, making no separate argument about the amount of development fees ultimately included in the cost basis if the trial court properly rejected their proposed amounts. We affirm.

Wine v. MSPB (Nonprecedential)

Mitch Wine petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of his individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Wine did not make non-frivolous allegations of a “personnel action” taken against him, we affirm the Board’s decision.