- 3 -
We previously granted respondent’s motion for partial
summary judgment, holding that petitioner’s method of accounting
for tax purposes during the years in issue was the same method
that it used for FERC/FPSC regulatory and financial accounting
purposes. Petitioner had taken the position that it had always
been on “the method required by Section 1.162-4 of the
Regulations” for tax purposes. See FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 554 (2000). We incorporate FPL Group,
Inc. & Subs. in this opinion.
Petitioner’s present motion for partial summary judgment is
a sequel to our prior ruling. Having lost its argument that it
was always on the “method of accounting” required by section
1.162-4, Income Tax Regs., rather than the method of accounting
prescribed by the FERC/FPSC, petitioner now argues that, if its
method of accounting for distinguishing between capital and
repair expenses was the FERC/FPSC accounting method, then
respondent changed petitioner’s method to the “method of
accounting” required by section 1.162-4, Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner bases this argument on the fact that, during the
examination for the years in issue, respondent examined items
that petitioner had expensed as repairs to determine whether
these items met the requirements of section 1.162-4, Income Tax
Regs. This examination resulted in an agreed adjustment wherein
approximately $1.2 million that had been deducted as repair
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011