- 193 -
No doubt, petitioner constructed the SJRPP using extensive
and specific drawings and diagrams. Yet the plan introduced by
petitioner lacked the specificity necessary to identify the “wrap
up” work and “enhancements and deficiencies” work. While
petitioner argues that Mr. Reid linked each work order in issue
to the original written plan, TRA section 203(b)(1)(C) requires
that a taxpayer introduce an actual written plan that
specifically identifies the items in order to receive the ITC
under the plant facility rule. Without the “written specific
plan”, we cannot determine whether these items were part of the
plans for the SJRPP as of December 31, 1985, or whether these
specific items result from subsequent plans.
We also note that the plan introduced by petitioner is the
seventh revision, dated after December 31, 1985. The exact date
of the revision is illegible, but it appears to have been made in
1988. The conference report indicates that insignificant
modification to the “written specific plan” will not jeopardize
an ITC under the plant facility rule; however, significant
revisions after December 31, 1985, will disqualify a plant
facility construction from the relief provided by TRA section
203(b)(1)(C). H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (Vol. II), supra at II-57,
1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) at 57. Petitioner failed to prove that
these revisions were insignificant, and Mr. Reid testified that
he did not know whether the revisions were significant.
Page: Previous 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011