If you’re searching for ways to increase 179D savings (or you’re worried a claim may be too aggressive), the real question is usually simpler:
Is the reported savings number understated, overstated, or fragile?
This is an independent, pre-certification review of an existing 179D proposed energy model. The objective is to help owners and tax teams determine whether the current result appears: conservative (missed savings likely), reasonable (stable), or aggressive (clawback risk).
This is not a tutorial and not a list of “tips.” It’s a professional second opinion focused on: material dollar impact and defensibility under scrutiny.
The goal is rarely “maximize savings at any cost.”
The goal is usually:
increase savings where it’s defensible, while reducing clawback exposure where claims are fragile.
This review is designed to answer both sides of that equation—quietly and before filing:
The output is decision clarity: whether to proceed as-is, adjust toward a more stable claim, or pursue defensible upside.
Many projects land near key thresholds. In those situations, small shifts in modeled performance can materially change the
outcome of a 179D deduction. Sometimes the model is conservative and leaves value on the table. Other times, the model is fragile and dependent on assumptions that don’t hold up well when questioned.
As 179D values increase, so does scrutiny. Higher-tier savings claims can be exposed when results hinge on assumptions that are technically permissible but sensitive or hard to defend in a challenge.
This review helps identify whether the claimed savings appear stable or whether the project carries elevated risk.
You receive a concise memo (typically 2–4 pages) that classifies the model outcome and provides clear guidance on
risk and opportunity. The memo is designed for decision-makers and tax teams—clear conclusions, no noise.
This is an independent review performed with discretion and a focus on defensibility. The goal is to provide decision clarity
before certification and filing—not to publish methodologies or circulate checklists.
Yes. Compliance does not guarantee that results are optimized or that assumptions are balanced. This review assesses whether the
reported number appears conservative, reasonable, or fragile.
No. This service provides an independent assessment of likelihood and risk. Sometimes the right answer is “large material upside.”
Sometimes the right answer is “no material upside.”
Sometimes the right answer is “the claim is fragile.”
When the deduction amount is material, the project is near a threshold, or the claimed savings are high enough that
clawback risk is a serious concern.
If you have a project where the deduction is material and the result feels uncertain, reach out for a confidential discussion.
Please include the building type, location, project status (pre- vs post-certification), and where the savings appear to land
relative to thresholds.
Submit your info below and we will contact you within 1–2 business days.
Note: This service is not a substitute for certification and does not provide tax advice. It is a technical risk-and-opportunity
assessment intended to support owner and tax-team decision-making.