- 197 -
petitioner claims ITCs were placed in service during the 1988,
1989, and 1990 taxable years with tax bases of $3,264,386,
$8,091,517, and $4,413,670, respectively. Respondent contends
that petitioner failed to introduce written specific plans. In
addition, respondent asserts that these substations do not
qualify for the plant facility rule because petitioner did not
begin construction and did not commit to the construction costs
by December 31, 1985.
a. Written Specific Plan
We find that petitioner satisfies the “written specific
plan” requirement of the plant facility transitional rule. Ken
Veronee, a substation engineer for FPL, testified that the plot
plans showed “the location and the number of the transformers” at
the substations. At trial, Mr. Veronee specifically identified
the equipment on each plot plan and testified that the equipment
for which petitioner seeks an ITC was “within the scope” of the
original plan.132 The plot plans consist of diagrams that
132 For the following substations, petitioner introduced the
plot plans and Mr. Veronee testified that the transformers and
other equipment at issue were included in these plans: Alva
substation; Babcock substation; Cedar substation; Court
substation; Broward and Crystal substations; Deltona substation;
Dumfounding substation; Golden Gate substation; Hollybrook
substation; Lakeview substation; Lewis substation; Lindgren
substation; Miami Lakes substation; Milam substation; Park
substation; Howard and Proctor substation; Remsburg substation;
Rubonia substation; Saga substation; Southside substation;
Springtree substation; St. Joe substation; Sweetwater substation;
Willow substation; and Winkler substation.
Page: Previous 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011