- 9 -9
that petitioner was required to furnish utilities to WTC "at
[petitioner's] cost." This provision flatly contradicts
petitioner's assertion that WTC purchased biomass from petitioner
in exchange for the "fixed payment".
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner has failed to meet its
burden of proving that it sold a qualified fuel to an unrelated
person pursuant to section 29.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011