- 147 -
4. St. John’s River Power Park (SJRPP)
Petitioner claims ITCs for the property that was constructed
or reconstructed at the SJRPP pursuant to FPL’s written joint
agreement (or JOA) with the JEA, and argues that this agreement
is a TRA section 203(b)(1)(A) contract. In claiming an ITC,
petitioner, in its reply brief, states that it “clearly limited
this argument to the JOA” and does not rely on the third-party
construction contracts entered into by the JEA.113 The equipment
in issue was placed in service during the 1988, 1989, and 1990
taxable years with tax bases of $1,702,649, $2,376,238, and
-$360,804,114 respectively.
Respondent argues that the joint agreement is not a
construction contract because the binding contract rule applies
only to contracts in which construction, reconstruction,
erection, or acquisition of property is itself the subject matter
of the contract.
TRA section 203(a)(3) provides relief from the ITC repeal
for “any property which is constructed, reconstructed, or
acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written contract which was
113 Respondent had argued in his brief that, because FPL was
not a signatory to the many contracts entered into by the JEA,
there are no TRA sec. 203(b)(1)(A) contracts under which
petitioner may claim an ITC.
114 Petitioner claims a negative number as the ITC in its
proposed ultimate findings of fact. Mr. Engstrom testified that
the negative number was the result of FPL’s debit/credit
accounting system.
Page: Previous 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011