- 159 -
costs by the applicable date; nor (2) begin construction by
December 31, 1985. Petitioner argues that it met these
requirements because the “wrap up” work and “enhancements and
deficiencies” work was part of the SJRPP Unit 1 property.
We find that the “wrap up” work and the “enhancements and
deficiencies” work constitute separate property from Unit 1 and
the common facilities because they were not essential or integral
to the operation of Unit 1 and the common facilities at the
SJRPP. Both petitioner and respondent rely on Haw. Indep.
Refinery, which we find particularly instructive. In Haw. Indep.
Refinery, Inc. v. United States, 697 F.2d at 1064, the court
analyzed the meaning of property under section 50 of the 1971
Internal Revenue Code, which restored the ITC. The taxpayer
built an oil refinery facility comprised of a tanker-mooring
facility, pipelines, and a refinery. Id. at 1065-1066. The
taxpayer argued that the tanker-mooring facility and the
pipelines qualified for an ITC because these two components were
separate pieces of property from the refinery.118 Id. at 1069.
118 Construction on the tanker-mooring facility and the
pipelines began on May 21 and Nov. 30, 1971, respectively. Haw.
Indep. Refinery, Inc. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1063, 1069 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). The construction of these items began after sec. 50
restored the ITC. Id. If the tanker-mooring facility and the
pipelines constituted separate property from the refinery, these
two components would have qualified for the ITC. Id. However,
if these components were considered a single piece of property
with the refinery, they would not qualify for the ITC because
construction of the refinery began before the effective date of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011