- 160 -
In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Claims reasoned that
these three components constituted a single piece of property
because the refinery could not function properly without the
tanker-mooring facilities and the pipelines. Haw. Indep.
Refinery, Inc. v. United States, 49 AFTR 2d at 691, 82-1 USTC
par. 9183, at 83,311. The Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of Claims that the
refinery, tanker-mooring facility, and refined products pipelines
constituted a single property for the purposes of the ITC. Haw.
Indep. Refinery, Inc. v. United States, 697 F.2d at 1069.
Agreeing that the components “functionally form a single
property”, the Court of Appeals noted that “the refinery complex
was conceived, designed, and constructed as a unit, the three
components being placed in operation concurrently.” Id.
In Consumers Power Co. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 710 (1987),
this Court addressed the meaning of “a single property” under a
prior ITC repeal and its transitional rules. The taxpayer and
Detroit Edison Co. built a hydroelectric plant, consisting of a
pump storage plant and a reservoir. Id. at 716-717. The
taxpayer and Detroit Edison Co. began pumping water into the
reservoir in October 1972 as part of the preoperational testing.
Id. at 717. In November 1972, the plant generated electrical
118(...continued)
sec. 50. Id.
Page: Previous 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011