- 99 -
petitioner must follow if it wishes to provide services to
customers. The tariff does not obligate customers to continue
the purchase of electrical services, and the price for future
services can be adjusted by the State.
Petitioner also argues that respondent has taken the
position in published guidance that a tariff is a contract.
Petitioner cites Rev. Rul. 68-109, 1968-1 C.B. 10, which
addressed “whether switchboards installed in furnishing
communications services to tax-exempt organizations or government
units qualify as ‘section 38 property.’” Id. In the revenue
ruling, the investment tax credit would not have been available
had the property been owned by or leased to the tax-exempt
organizations or government units. The taxpayer installed
equipment pursuant to contracts between it and its customers that
were tax-exempt organizations or government units. Under the
terms of the contracts, the taxpayer retained all ownership and
control of the equipment, and the customers paid the installation
charges and provided an operator for the equipment. On the basis
of these factors, the ruling concludes: “Hence, the agreement
entered into between the taxpayer and the customer is not a sale
or lease but a service contract.” Id. After holding that the
agreement was a service contract, the revenue ruling stated:
Furthermore, the services furnished by the taxpayer [a
regulated utility] and the manner in which they must be
furnished are described in tariffs on file with the
Federal Communications Commission * * *. These tariffs
Page: Previous 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011