- 17 -
has rebuilt three of the systems only twice since the late
1970's.
Wometco notes that since franchise agreements entered into
by cable television companies in the 1970's and 1980's rarely
included express rebuild requirements, few companies would
receive any benefit under a narrow interpretation of the supply
or service transition rule. We disagree. Rebuilds and line
extensions that were specifically under contract as of
December 31, 1985, would be readily identifiable with and would
be treated as necessary to carry out specific contracts for such
improvements and would qualify for ITC under the supply or
service transition rule.
We conclude that Wometco is not entitled to ITC for the
costs of the six rebuilds. As of December 31, 1985, Wometco was
not under contract to install the six rebuilds, and the rebuilds
were not necessary to carry out Wometco's extant franchise
agreements. With regard to the line extensions, no evidence
indicates that Wometco had specific binding commitments, as of
December 31, 1985, to install the line extensions.3
Wometco is not entitled to the claimed ITC for the costs of
the rebuilds and the line extensions.
3 As indicated, we decide this case on the basis that the six
rebuilds and line extensions were not necessary to carry out
Wometco's franchise agreements. We do not decide the issue of
whether the six rebuilds and line extensions were “readily
identifiable with” Wometco's franchise agreements.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011