- 200 -
plant facility.’” Id. at 653-654 (quoting S. Rept. 91-552, at
235 (1969), 1969-3 C.B. 423, 572, and citing similar language in
H. Rept. 91-413 (Part 1), at 187, 1969-3 C.B. 200, 317). The
refinery’s operation did not depend on the alkylation unit, as
demonstrated by its operation for several years before the
construction of the alkylation unit. Id. at 654. The Court held
that the alkylation unit itself, not the refinery as a whole, was
the “plant facility” under section 49(b)(3) of the 1969 Code.
Id.
Like the alkylation unit in OKC Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra, petitioner’s transformers and other equipment at issue are
distinct from the original substation construction. The
substations were placed in service and in operation before the
installation of the items at issue.133 For example, the Alva
133 See appendix A, which provides the dates that petitioner
approved the ER for each of the items at issue. Each substation
and the date that it was placed in service or scheduled to be
completed is as follows:
Substation Date
Alva Sept. 1980
Babcock May 1985
Cedar June 1981
Court May 1981
Crystal Sometime between 1970 and 1972
Deltona July 1984
Dumfoundling Nov. 1982
Golden Gate Dec. 1983
Hollybrook 1988
Lakeview Mar. 1982
Lewis May 1972
(continued...)
Page: Previous 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011