- 11 -
Respondent does not dispute that the fuel assemblies were
necessary for petitioner to carry out the terms of the power
contracts. Instead, respondent contends that the operating
license and amendments and appendices thereto are not “related
documents” to the power contracts.
In Bell Atl. Corp. v. United States, supra, a
telecommunications service provider claimed the investment tax
credit for major improvements to its telephone systems. The
taxpayer asserted that the franchises, tariffs, and contracts
with other local telephone companies were written service
contracts. The court did not find it necessary to decide whether
the franchises, tariffs, and contracts were written service
contracts but, instead, focused on whether any of the property
improvements were readily identifiable with and necessary to
carry out the contracts. The court found that the “franchises,
tariffs, and other contracts contain service quality standards
that regulate telephone service, impose conditions on service and
set service goals.” Id. at 223-224. The court reasoned that the
property for which the taxpayer sought an investment tax credit
“cannot be determined from the terms of any of the tariffs,
franchises, or other contracts * * * because these alleged
‘contracts’ speak only of service quality standards, never
mentioning property of any sort.” Id. at 224.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011