- 12 -
The taxpayer in Bell Atl. Corp. also asserted that its
estimate files were related documents because the estimate files
documented the purchase of and need for the new property under
the service quality standard. The court held “that property
cannot be shown to be ‘readily identifiable with’ a written
service contract by means of internally generated documents, such
as the estimate files * * *, that were not prepared
contemporaneously with the contract, that had no binding effect
on anyone, and that were not provided to the other contracting
party”. Id. at 225.
In S. Multi-Media Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner, 113
T.C. 412 (1999), a cable television company claimed the
investment tax credit for property used to make extensive
improvements to some of its systems and to extend its lines in
some of its service areas. Even though the company’s franchise
required that the system be “maintained in accordance with the
highest accepted standards of the industry”, this Court held that
“the general language of * * * franchise agreements, without
more, reflects only broad industry standards, not specific
contractual commitments to undertake rebuilds.” Id. at 414, 421.
In United States v. Commonwealth Energy Sys., supra, the
taxpayer entered into a set of power contracts with other
utilities in 1965, pursuant to which it agreed to build a power
plant and the other utilities agreed to purchase the plant output
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011