International Automated Systems (fka IAUS)

[scion]

Defendants’ customers are not entitled to the tax benefits that Defendants promote, and Defendants know or have reason to know it.

41. Because Defendants’ scheme centers on purported solar energy technology, hereafter the scheme will be referred to as the “solar energy scheme.”

42. Defendants induce customers to rely on their representations about the tax benefits of the solar energy scheme by providing customers a letter from Anderson Law Center, P.C., of Delta, Utah, and a memorandum from the law firm Kirton McConkie, of Salt Lake City, Utah. Johnson obtained both the Anderson letter and the Kirton McConkie memorandum.

43. But neither the Anderson letter nor the Kirton McConkie memorandum support Defendants’ assertions about the tax benefits of their solar energy scheme because, among other reasons, the facts of the solar energy scheme as Defendants know them are different than the facts stated and assumed in the letter and memorandum.

44. Defendants’ customers are not entitled to the deductions they claim for “business” expenses, including depreciation, nor are they entitled to the § 48 energy credit, and Defendants know or have ample reason to know it.

Defendants’ purported solar technology is a sham.

45. Defendants know, or have reason to know, that they do not have operational, or even nearly operational, technology that would employ the lenses they have “sold” to use solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a structure, or to provide solar process heat for any purpose that Congress intended to encourage through tax deductions or credits.

46. Defendants know, or have reason to know, that they do not have the appropriate permits from Millard County for the production of solar energy on the Installation.

47. Defendants’ “lenses” consist of thin sheets of plastic.

48. There are some lenses mounted on towers at the Installation in Millard County.

49. The thin plastic lenses that have been mounted have been exposed to desert conditions. Many are broken and dangling out of their frames. The ground near the Installation is littered with shards of plastic from lenses which have broken and fallen.

50. In this state, the lenses cannot capture or direct sunlight such that it could be used for any purpose that Congress intended to encourage through tax deductions or credits.

51. The vast majority of lenses purportedly sold – if they even exist – have not been mounted. Defendants claim that the lenses are in storage.

52. Defendants’ customers have not been able to identify which lenses purportedly belong to them, as opposed to lenses that purportedly belong to other customers. They have not been able to identify whether their lenses have been prepared for installation, are in storage, are mounted on the towers, or have fallen off of the towers and into the desert.

53. Even if the lenses could somehow focus the sunlight to generate energy, the towers and other infrastructure on the Installation are in a state of such disrepair that such energy could not be collected and used for any purpose that Congress intended to encourage.

54. On information and belief, even if the infrastructure on the Installation were in a state of good repair, it would not actually generate useable solar energy.

55. In short, Defendants’ purported “disruptive” and “revolutionary” technology is a sham.


Extract -
Doc 2 PDF file
https://www.scribd.com/doc/291081416/USA-v-RaPower-3-Et-Al-Doc-2-Filed-23-Nov-15