- 139 -
constitutes acceptance of that offer. Id. at 820. However, even
assuming the existence of a contract, the evidence lacks any
contract between FPL and Stearns Catalytic that was binding on
December 31, 1985, an express requirement of the transitional
rule. One purchase order has an effective date of December 17,
1984, and an expiration date of November 1, 1985. Apparently, a
change order to the purchase order was issued, having an
effective date of December 19, 1985. However, we have no
evidence showing whether the agreement between Stearns Catalytic
and FPL was a binding contract as of December 31, 1985. No
testimony identifies the date that Stearns Catalytic accepted
FPL’s written offer. The purchase orders in evidence are FPL’s
purchase orders. Mr. Bible testified that FPL purchased
equipment/services from Stearns Catalytic as stated in the
purchase orders. But no evidence indicates when the contract to
provide such equipment/services was created. The record contains
only information establishing when FPL made its offer to Stearns
Catalytic. Accordingly, we hold that the FPL/Stearns Catalytic
relationship is not a binding contract for purposes of TRA
section 203(b)(1)(A); therefore, petitioner is not entitled to an
ITC with respect to the nuclear fuel transfer system in the 1988,
1989, and 1990 taxable years.
Page: Previous 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011