- 13 -
Mr. Gramlich also disagrees with petitioner’s statement that all
of the subject property was placed in service solely in order to
comply with the terms of the Livonia Franchise Agreement. That
disagreement appears to be based upon his observation that,
generally, a cable television operator makes all decisions for
"business reasons", and that, if the business reasons conflict
with a requirement of the franchise agreement, "the cable
operator will seek relief from the franchising authority."
III. Discussion
A. Introduction
As stated, we shall deny both motions. We shall deny each
motion for a different reason. We shall deny respondent’s motion
because we disagree with respondent’s determination that the pre-
1986 documents fail to contain sufficient descriptions to
determine whether the subject property is "readily identifiable
with" such documents. See infra sec. III.E. We shall deny
petitioner’s motion because there are genuine issues of fact as
to whether all of the subject property is "readily identifiable
with and necessary to carry out" the Livonia Franchise Agreement.
See id.
B. Statutory Provisions
Prior to 1986, an investment tax credit was available
pursuant to sections 38(b), 46, 48, for investments in certain
types of tangible property placed in service during the taxable
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011