20200930Kahn Direct.pdf

Michae! C. Creamer (lSB No. 4030)
Preston N. Carter (lSB No. 8462)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, lD 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 388-1 300
m cc@ g ivensp u rsley. co m
prestoncarter@g ivenspu rsley.com
Attorneysfor SUEZWater ldaho lnc.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICAT]ON OF SUEZ WATER
IDAHO INC. FOR AUTHORIW TO
INCREASE ITS RATES AND
CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN
THE STATE OF IDAHO
s. 1.*11 r't!JI_r\I'"'L" \.t i* t B i- tJ
ilii I:f 3$ PH tEr 58
-.r 1*_a :.r r.i_ .! - l- {'-. ' ''1: r .',i:,'":i"t+oii-i$'i{Ht
Case No. SUZ-W-2O-O2
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW KAHN
SEPTEMBER2O2O
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
1Q.
2A.
o.
A.
o.
A.
10 o.
11 A.
12
13
14
15
16
174
18
19 A
21 0.
Please state your name and business address.
I am Matthew H. Kahn. My business address is 461 From Road, Paramus,
NJ 07652.
By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
! am the Tax Manager, Utility Division for SUEZ Water Management &
Services lnc. ("SUEZ Water M&S').
What are your job responsibilities?
I am primarily responsible for the management of income taxes for SUEZ
Water lnc.'s ("SUEZ") regulated utilities.
Please outline your educational and professional qualifications.
! received a Bachelor of Accountancy degree from Bentley University in
2004. Subsequently, I received a Masters of Taxation degree from Bentley
University in 2010. I joined SUEZ Water M&S as Tax Manager in July of
2019. Previous to that, I was employed by Con Edison, an electric, natura!
gas and steam utility operating in the northeast, as Tax Manager,
overseeing income taxes and depreciation.
Have you previously testified before the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission" or "!PUG")?
No. However, I have previously testified before other state commissions on
various regulatory issues, including New York and New Jersey.
What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
o10
1A.
11
124
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
o.
A.
The purpose of my testimony is to present ratemaking considerations
resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ("TCJA") as well as to sponsor
Exhibit 12.
Have you prepared or had prepared under your direction any exhibits
to your testimony?
Yes, I am sponsoring Exhibit 12, Schedule 1 which provides support for the
balance of the TCJA regulatory liability at the test year ended June 30,
2020. Exhibit No. 10, Schedule 1 provides the amortization of the TCJA
regulatory liability for the test year ended June 30, 2020.
Please describe the TGJA and its effects on the Company's books and
records.
On December 22, 2017, the President signed into law the TCJA which
substantially modifies the lnternal Revenue Code and has a direct impact
on Suez Water ldaho ("SW|D" or "Company") and other regulated utilities.
The TCJA provision having the greatest direct impact is the reduction of the
corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. This change reduces both
current and deferred Federa! lncome Tax Expense for SWID and reduces
the amount of Accumulated Deferred lncome Tax ("AD|T") required to be
recognized on the Company's balance sheet. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") required that companies reflect the effects
of the change in ADIT in the 2017 financial statements resulting from the
change in the FIT rate from 35% to 21%. Also, because SWID is rate
regulated and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, that change in
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the total balance of ADIT, including gross-up, was reflected as a regulatory
liability on the Company's balance sheet as of December 31, 2017 in
response to the IPUC Generic Tax Order No. 33965, Case No. GNR-U-18-
01 (Jan. 16, 2018). This regulatory liability amount is also commonly
referred to as excess accumulated deferred income taxes ("EADIT"), and
was subsequently addressed in Order No. 34074 by the Commission, Case
No. GNR-U-18-01 (May 31 ,20181.
a. Has the IDPSC addressed the treatment of the EADIT regulatory
liability?
A. Yes. ln Order No. 34074, the Commission reduced the Company's rates to
reflect a decrease in SWID's rates by $2.7 million to reflect the reduction in
the FIT rate, as wel! as an order to file an update to its defened income tax
records in order to work with Staff to determine the amount and manner in
which to return to customers the remaining benefits from the TCJA, as
agreed by Commission Staff, and the Company. The Company's base rates
were changed effective June 1,2018 as ordered.
O. What were the results of the Company's updates to its initial filing of
its EADIT balances in response to Order No. 33965?
A. The Company has performed a review of its deferred tax balances as of
December 31, 2017, and has finalized its 2017 tax returns subsequent to
the initial Order. The result of the updates to the original filing reduced the
overall regulatory liability by approx. $20,000 as a result of return to
provision (RTP) and tax basis balance sheet (TBBS) adjustments.
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
o.What are RTP and TBBS adjustments and why are they necessary?
For GAAP accounting purposes, the Company records an income tax
provision based upon its books and records. lt is normally several months
before the income tiax return is completed and filed. For example, the
Company's 2018 federal income tax return was filed on October 15,2019.
ln order to reflect the correct balance, any differences between the tax
return filing and the income tax provision filing are accounted for (or trued-
up) by adjusting the balances to match the tax return.
Separately, TBBS adjustments reflect a review of overall timing
differences which support the accumulated deferred income tax balances
for any specific item giving rise to differences between financial accounting
and the accounting for income tax purposes. As those timing differences
reverse, the accumulated deferred tax obligations will reverse and become
currently payable to the Company.
What is the balance of the EADIT regulatory liability balance after
this adjustment?
The balance is $5,980,752, representing a reduction to the original balance
provided in response to Order 33965 of $19,962. This amount is reflected
in my Exhibit No. 12, Schedule 1.
Does this indicate a change in the amortization of the amount of the
EADIT regulatory liability balance?
Yes. However, there are two other considerations that must be addressed.
The first is an adjustment to the protected and unprotected EADIT balances.
A
10
11
12
13
14
15 A.
16
17 A.
18
19
20 Cl.
21
22 A.
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
4
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
The second is to address the Company's required use of the Average Rate
Assumption Method (ARAM) for retuming the protected portion of the
EADIT balance.
a. Please describe the Gompany's understanding and definition of
"protected" and "unprotected" EADIT.
A. The amortization period for the amount of the regulatory liability which
arose from temporary differences between book and tax methods and
lives that are considered "protected" and, per the lnternal Revenue Code
Section 168(09 normalization rules may be amortized no faster than over
the period in which ADIT would have otherwise reversed over the
remaining book lives of its assets. The Average Rate Assumption Method
('ARAM") of amortization must be utilized for as much of the regulatory
liability as possible if the requisite data is available to the utility. ARAM
calculates a specific amount by year rather than a period of amortization
and if amortized faster, could result in a normalization violation which
would prohibit the Company from utilizing accelerated depreciation for
income tax purposes. The results of the Company's ARAM calculations
from 2O2l through 2023 are as follows:
ARAM
2021
2022
2023
$227,000
$233,000
$251,000
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
a.
A.
The amortization period forthe amountof the regulatory liabilitywhich arose
from amounts not considered normalized are "unprotected" and may be
amortized by the utility over a period different from the protected amount.
What amount is the Company utilizing for the ARAM amortization in
this case?
As shown above, for 2021the maximum amount of ARAM amortization that
can be recognized in 2021 is $227,000. For 2022 the cunent calculation
indicates that the maximum amount that can be amortized is about
$233,000. However, the Company believes that, because the ARAM
amount is updated annually and could change either up or down because
of the retirement of fixed assets, an amortization amount of $203,000 for
this case is prudent in order to allow for potential changes in the ARAM
amount for 2021and following once the recalculation is performed. As this
case will likely set rates for more than one year, if the amount of the
amortization of the protected portion of the EADIT set in this case is greater
than the ARAM amount in a future period, the Company would need to file
for a change in tariff rates to reduce the amortization to the amount allowed
in that future period. The ARAM amount is a maximum amount or "speed
limit" if you wil! therefore, an amortization amount of $203,000 for the
protected EADIT is included in Exhibit No. 10, Schedule 1.
Please describe the adjustment to the protected and unprotected
EADIT balances.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 A
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
6
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
A.ln reviewing the Company's balances, the Company believes it is
reasonable to believe that amounts included in the EADIT balances related
to Tangible Property Regulations are not protected under the normalization
rules. There is support for this view in the form of a private letter ruling
202017015 released 412412020 attached as Exhibit 12, Schedule 2 to this
testimony. This change increases the amount of unprotected EADIT to be
returned to customers by approximately $1.8 million which the Company is
proposing to amortize, along with its EADIT related to cost of removal and
tank painting, over a 10 year period in this case as included in Exhibit No.
10, Schedule 1.
Does this conclude your testimony at this time?
Yes.
10
11 0.
12 A.
Kahn, Di
SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
7
Michael C. Creamer (lSB No. 4030)
Preston N. Carter (lSB No. 8462)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, lD 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 388-1 300
m cc@qivenspu rslev.com
[e-mail]
Attorneys for SUEZ Water ldaho lnc.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC. FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. SUZ-W-2O-O2
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 12TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW KAHN
NdN*d*
?Ea -6rfr5OEELo * Oioulc/r>
ts
tsaioq
NNo.
@
t
lq
qq
qB{
N-ooONod ottFOFcnJ
Frtod@@
ooFaioN
N{orioo
oo\NoN
600No+ o
ci of .n6N @
@Fo
CCooo6ooooO6o6'ooo6€6*+N6<66060@OOe60FO6ioF 6 (,, @n*o 6@ouirioo - @ to{o @N60tuo o 0600 Ns666F O +-ts6 V@
-JJci a 2 Cgoeq
o @oa$
atN@-
@o
IN
ode
FoN
oo
doxa
UoEooEott-Eo
ogcE:
o
Eo
6ll
-oogoo
uE6
ooo6eo.:EBEoo
>(JE36E
B2:E
EEts*EoEE6-::?ooc6go(Fo-:ooE9EE95o-o9t-f!AE6;&P- xbegOta; EEoE=eeo!-s58g-cco- E9o;6EE.E IEo(,)<
o
oo
ria
oGt
GoEor
3o
GFA.6J
o
Efood
o
6N
@N
eOONooc,i @OFNOod c.t
ON
o@+oNI--*
TNooN@o- rjNOoo
'j*
FO@oN- O-ooN!t@@
oo
od6*
oo
od@t
6'o o o Co o o q o 6'o o r ?Co o ooo+ 600@@Nto tbso666 FoFo+tNo o-orddoi ^idioi.j.jJri6i rtddd+6N oNOF-FO!t @OrO+-6 6oN N @@ @FO{
6F
6'Cooo6'o?.o6'oQfr+o+NoFO@+N+FO@6tFFOFFOtsOtt+Ft@FOeOO
hNONeFFOO*OOO@@NOoNO-OFO*IOFOF@N+FooN {@FOFOVS@
ooo@TOFNOiO@F@OFNOt-dd6-ooooOOOOOrFFF-oNN at NO aq (i)c) c) oo o o o o oo o666@O@6@@@@OOOO@@@@-NdINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
tso
.ioos
N
ss
@ocqNO
ssssooooOOrF.qqaoqN6NOooo
ssssOOO-NOSts
ld .j 6i ail*-*
I
I
I
o
N6tso6o
6e
GG(a
FFc4
ooE6t()
o
Gtoo
.J'o.EEIo=co-CEoo6g
.eE!o(]DEE6ooz5
6-.gf
EE8EooLg-o_=L
OE9'-coo6
"sktsco()
ogo.0oo
*Egd d:6i;"FEC69boEEPPgq== 6.EcoOobts3EB8 E(rr!Lo
ottsort- 6{ON66INot rt
oEca:oooxp6,!dc:tsE6:ObE9E O!8Ev>L gI iE
iEf,LLOoooo
ONo@@-$"toeo{60d
N
ade
.E-oFoooo
oFoo
ooo
ooF
F_ngf;a ,E -p;5* EtE cssE " essaeg
EpaE*.E{'Efi$gq:g eHHH
E g g q e a F E t E" ;'.E [ 6 5 ==-: r r{ t t + r- r- r- r- t I t + F F F F F F Fl.LLLLLLTTTLLLLILTLLjjjjjiil{!dildddGddddbbboooDooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o@oo{t66NN
FNO{OOtsoOOFNO*o(oF@OOTNO$n FFNNNNNN
EoooIccf
!oooo
o.
oOE3*96OEt
pE
+f;
E
LO
.lE<!c6
ooocgo6
=o.gJ
Bog
=totxoFoEooEltotsoooooooxltEc6xoFoEooEts
,:EO
= oN=E:9,EaeE6 i
EE E
=:6Nit:1 56.h<4
oEJ
lnternal Revenue Service
Number: 202017015
Release Date: 412412020
lndex Number: 168.24-01
ln Re:
LEGEND:
Taxpayer
Parent
State A
Commission
Order
Date 1
Date 2
Date 3
Date 4
Date 5
Date 6
Date 7
Year 1
Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC20224
Third Party Communication: None
Date of Communication: Not Applicable
Person To Contact:
, !D No.
Telephone Number:
Refer Reply To:
CC:PSl:806
PLR-117557-19
Date:
January 23,2020
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page 1 of11
Year 2
a
b
g
d
e
!
g
Dear
This letter responds to a request for a private letter ruling dated July 26, 2019,
and submitted on behalf of Taxpayer for rulings under S 168(ixg) of the lnternal
Revenue Code and $ 1.167(l)-1 of the lncome Tax Regulations (together, the
"Normalization Rules") regarding the scope of the deferred tax normalization
requirements in connection with a Consent Agreement related to a Form 3115,
Application for Change in Accounting Method, filed that was approved for the Year 1 tax
year. The relevant facts as represented in your submission are set forth below.
FACTS
Taxpayer files a consolidated federal income tax return on a calendar year basis
with its affiliates, including Parent. Taxpayer uses an accrual method of accounting as
its overall method of accounting.
Parent is a water and wastewater utility company. Taxpayer is the regulated
water/wastewater utility subsidiary affiliate that operates in State A. Prices charged by
Taxpayer are set by the Commission in the manner described in this letter.
Commission sets rates that Taxpayer may charge for the furnishing or sale of
water or sewage disposal services through a combination of periodic general rate case
proceed i ngs a nd i nfra stru ctu re su rcha rge proceed in gs.
For general rate case proceedings, Taxpayer computes a revenue requirement
subject to Commission approval based on recovery of a debt- and equity-based return
on investment in rate base, including the cost of plant assets less accumulated book
depreciation, and a recovery of operating expenses, including depreciation expense,
property tax expense, salary expense, and income tax expense. ln setting the allowed
return for the utilities that it regulates, Commission treats accumulated deferred income
case No' P,##-?. ?3
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page2of11
tax liabilities (ADIT) as zero-cost capital in the computation of a weighted-average costs
of capital to be applied to a rate base computation that is not reduced by ADIT.
The issues presented in this ruling request are a result of the following two
separate but related proceedings (collectively referred to as "Rate Proceeding"
throughout the ruling request):
lnvestigation into the impacts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Actof 2017
("TJCA" or "Act") and possible rate implications initiated by the
Commission on Date 1 with respect to alljurisdictional rate'regulated,
investor-owned utilities.
Petition to increase its rates and charges for water utility service initiated
by Taxpayer on Date 2.
On Date 1, the Commission initiated an investigation to allow the Commission to
consider the impacts and resulting benefits from the Act and how any resulting benefit
should be realized by customers.
ln general, subject to future guidance expected to be issued by the Service
related to the excess accumulated deferred income taxes (EADIT) normalization rules,
Taxpayer and the other parties are generally in agreement as to which specific timing
differences and associated ADIT and EADIT are and are not subject to normalization
requirements. The only disputes that exist are related to the Taxpayer's timing
difference with respect to its tax-only repair and maintenance deductions. The
disagreement with regard to repair-related EADIT is due to differing interpretations of
the Consent Agreement that Parent received from the Service on Date 3, on behalf of
itself and various affiliates, including Taxpayer, with respect to changes in tax methods
of accounting for costs to repair and maintain tangible property and for dispositions of
certiain tangible depreciable property described in this letter.
On Date 4, parties to the Rate Proceeding entered into a settlement agreement.
On Date 5, the Commission approved the settlement ("Orde/'). Rates became effective
on Date 6 and were based on a test period ending Date 7. The settlement agreement
resolved both the general rate case and the TCJA case, subject to clarification of the
uncertainty described in this letter concerning the scope of the defened tax
normalization rules. Because of the uncertainty related to the Consent Agreement
described in this letter, a condition of the Order permits Taxpayer to submit this ruling
request.
Specifically, the Order provides, in part, that the parties have agreed in the
pending rate case that, for purposes of certain rates, Taxpayer will use the estimate of
EADIT which produces a result that is approximately the same as an estimate using
ARAM for the entirety of Taxpaye/s EADIT. The parties further agreed that Taxpayer
will seek a private letter ruling from the Service requesting a determination whether the
Commission has the discretion to order an amortization of EADIT related to Taxpayer's
case No'
PYf;[-',I?3
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page3of11
o
tax deductions for repairs that is faster than the average rate assumption method
(ARAM). The parties agreed the ruling request is not an opportunity for advocacy for
one outcome or another and that the ruling request will be drafted using neutral and
unbiased language.
As noted, Taxpayer and its affiliates changed their tax methods of accounting for
costs to repair and maintain tangible property and for dispositions of certain tangible
depreciable property in a prior tax year. The year of change was Year 1, and
Taxpayer's net deductible $ a81(a) adjustment was approximately $a. The Consent
Agreement granting permission for the tax accounting method changes states that this
amount represents a netting of the net negative S 481(a) adjustment for maintenance
and repairs with the net positive S 481(a) adjustment for dispositions. The Consent
Agreement described the netting as a one-time exception allowed to Taxpayer for the
year of change based on its particular situation. The net deductible $ a81(a) adjustment
for the repair-related change in tax method of accounting was $b and the net taxable
S 481(a) adjustment for the disposition-related change in tax method of accounting was
$s.
The Consent Agreement provides nine conditions that Taxpayer must satisfy
including the following condition, at issue, related to the normalization rules:
9) lf any item of propefi subject to the taxpayer's Form 31 15 is public utility
property within the meaning of S 168(iX10) or former $ 167(l)(3)(A):. (A) A normalization method of accounting (within the meaning of $ 168(i)(9),
former S 168(eX3)(B), or former S 167(lX3)(G), as applicable) must be used for
such public utility property;. (B) As of the beginning of the year of change, the taxpayer must adjust its
deferred tax reserve account or similar reserve account in the taxpayer's
regulatory books of account by the amount of the deferral of federal income tax
liability associated with the S 481(a) adjustment applicable to such public utility
property; and. (C) Within 30 calendar days of filing the federal income tax return for the year of
change or of receiving this letter ruling, whichever is later, the taxpayer must
provide a copy of its Form 3115 (and any additional information submitted to the
Service in connection with such Form 3115) to any regulatory body having
jurisdiction over such public utility property.
The parties to the Rate Proceeding generally agree that the EADIT related to the
repairs method change and ongoing repairs deductions are not subject to the
normalization requirements under the applicable statute and regulations.
Notwithstanding that agreement, however, Taxpayer is party to the Consent Agreement
that has very specific terms and conditions, including the condition nine above.
Taxpayer and other parties disagree whether the condition nine applies to Taxpayer's
request to change its method of accounting for repairs pursuant to $ 162, or to
Taxpayer's request to change its units of property for determining dispositions under
case No'
EY#;il1,?. ?3
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page4of11
S 168. Further, depending upon how this issue is answered, there is an additional
question of whether the EADIT that existed immediately prior to the beginning of the
year of change for the changes in tax method of accounting and resulted from
depreciation method and life differences remains subject to the deferred tax
normalization rules after implementation of the new tax method of accounting and
recognition of the S 481(a) adjustment.
Since the beginning of Year 1, the year of change for the new tax method of
accounting for repairs, and through the end of Year 2, Taxpayer has deducted
approximately $d of costs as repairs under S 162. These amounts were capitalized and
are depreciable for regulatory and financial reporting purposes, No income tax
depreciation was claimed on any of the $d of costs claimed as repairs under $ 162 of
the Code. The gross tax-only repair amounts are originating timing differences. During
these years, approximately $e of depreciation was reported for regulatory and financial
reporting purposes with respect to these costs. The book-only depreciation related to
the tax-only repairs has been the mechanism that Taxpayer was using prior to the TCJA
to reverse this timing difference. Similarly, the deductible repair-related component of
the $ 481(a) adjustment of $f constituted an originating timing difference and the book-
only depreciation related to this amount has been the mechanism to reverse this timing
difference. Through the end of Year 2, approximately $g of book depreciation was
reported for regulatory and financial reporting purposes with respect to the repair-
related component of the $ a81(a) adjustment.
The deferred tax normalization issues for which Taxpayer requests rulings are:
1) Whether net EADIT attributable to expenditures deducted as repairs for tax
purposes under S 162 after the beginning of the year of change through the end
of Year 2 pursuant to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement and capitalized and
depreciated for regulatory and financial reporting purposes is subject to the
normalization rules of $ 168(i)(9XA).
2) Whether net EADIT attributable to expenditures deducted as repairs as the
deductible (negative) component of the net $ 481(a) adjustment recognized in
Year 1 related to the change in tax method of accounting for repairs (net of tax
depreciation deducted under the former tax method of accounting) pursuant to
Taxpayer's Consent Agreement is subject to the normalization rules of
s 168(iXeXA).
3) Whether EADIT associated with depreciation method and life differences arising
prior to the beginning of the year of change with respect to property that was
public utility property under the former method of accounting and for which its
remaining tax basis was deducted as part of the repair component of the net
S 481(a) adjustment pursuant to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement remains subject
to the normalization rules of $ 168(i)(9XA).
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page5of11
RULINGS REQUESTED
(1)
The net EADIT resulting from expenditures (1) related to an item of property
includible in rate base and recoverable as regulatory depreciation expense and (2)
deducted as repairs under S 162 to public utility property within the meaning of
S 168(iX10) pursuant to the tax method of accounting for repairs permitted in
Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, is not subject to the normalization method of
accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg) and is not required to be treated as subject
to a normalization method of accounting pursuant to the Consent Agreement. As such
return of net EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM would not be a
violation of the EADIT normalization rules and would not be a violation of the Consent
Agreement.
or
The net EADIT resulting from expenditures (1) related to an item of property
includible in rate base and recoverable as regulatory depreciation expense and (2)
deducted as repairs under S 162 to public utility property within the meaning of
S 168(iX10) pursuant to the tax method of accounting for repairs permitted in
Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, is not subject to the normalization method of
accounting within the meaning of S 168(iX9), but is required to be treated as subject to a
normalization method of accounting pursuant to the Consent Agreement. As such,
return of net EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM would not be a
violation of the EADIT normalization rules, but would be a violation of the Consent
Agreement.
(2)
For any public utility property within the meaning of S 168(iX10) as of the end of
the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for the changes in tax methods
of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, the net EADIT resulting from
the repair-related component of the $ 481(a) adjustment is not subject to the
normalization method of accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg), and is not
required to be treated as subject to a normalization method of accounting pursuant to
the Consent Agreement. As such, return of net EADIT related to such timing difference
faster than ARAM would not be a violation of the EADIT normalization rules and would
not be a violation of the Consent Agreement.
or
For any public utility property within the meaning of S 168(iX10) as of the end of
the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for the changes in tax methods
of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, the net EADIT resulting from
the repair-related component of the S 481(a) adjustment is subject to the normalization
method of accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg), or is required to be treated as
subject to a normalization method of accounting pursuant to the Consent Agreement.
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page6of11
As such, return of EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM would be a
violation of the EADIT normalization rules and would be a violation of the Consent
Agreement.
(3)
For any public utility property within the meaning of S 168(iX10) as of the end of
the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for the changes in tax methods
of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, the net depreciation-related
ADIT that existed prior to the changes in tax methods of accounting for repairs and
dispositions remains subject to the normalization method of accounting within the
meaning of $ 168(i)(9) even after implementation of the new tax method of accounting.
As such, return of any net EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM
would be a violation of the EADIT normalization rules. Under the circumstiances
described above, retum of any EADIT related to such timing difference faster than
ARAM would not be a violation of the Consent Agreement.
or
For any public utility property within the meaning of S 168(iX10) as of the end of
the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for the changes in tax methods
of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, the net depreciation-related
ADIT that existed prior to the changes in tax methods of accounting for repairs and
dispositions is not subject to the normalization method of accounting within the meaning
of $ 168(ixg) even after implementation of the new tax method of accounting and is not
required to be normalized pursuant to the Consent Agreement. As such, return of any
net EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM would not be a violation
of the EADIT normalization rules and would not be a violation of the Consent
Agreement.
or
For any public utility property within the meaning of S 168(iX10) as of the end of
the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for the changes in tax methods
of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, the net depreciation-related
ADIT that existed prior to the changes in tax methods of accounting for repairs and
dispositions is not subject to the normalization method of accounting within the meaning
of $ 168(ixg) after implementation of the new tax method of accounting. However,
pursuant to the Consent Agreement, a normalization method of accounting is required.
As such, return of any net EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM
would not be a violation of the EADIT normalization rules, but would be a violation of the
Consent Agreement.
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page7of11
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Section 1 .167(l)-1(aX1) provides that the normalization requirements of former
S 167(l) with respect to public utility property defined in former S 167(lX3)(A) pertain only
to the deferral of federal income tax liability resulting from the use of an accelerated
method of depreciation for computing the allowance for depreciation under $ 167 and
the use of straight line method of depreciation for computing tax expense and
depreciation expense for purposes of estiablishing cost of services and for reflecting
operating results in regulated books of account.
Section 481(a) requires those adjustments necessary to prevent amounts from
being duplicated or omitted to be taken into account when a taxpaye/s taxable income
is computed under a method of accounting different from the method used to compute
taxable income for the preceding taxable year. See a/so $ 2.05(1) of Rev. Proc.97-27 ,
97-27,1997-1 C.B. 680 (the operative method change revenue procedure at the time
Taxpayerfiled its Form 3115).
An adjustment under S 481(a) can include amounts attributable to taxable years
that are closed by the period of limitation on assessment under S 6501(a). Suzy's Zoo
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 1 , 13 (2000), affd, 273 F .3d 875, 884 (9th Cir. 2001 );
Superior Coach of Florida, lnc. v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 895, 912 (1983), Weiss v.
Commissioner,SgS F.2d 500 (1Oth Cir. 1968), Spang lndustries, lnc. v. United Sfafes,6
Cl. Ct.38,46 (1984), rev'd on other grounds791F.2d 906 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See a/so
Mulholland v. lJnited Sfafes, 28 Fed. CI. 320, 334 (1993) (concluding that a court has
the authority to review the taxpayer's threshold selection of a method of accounting de
novo, and must determine, ab initio, whether the taxpayer's reported income is clearly
reflected).
Sections 481(c) and 1 .481-4 provide that the adjustment required by S a81(a)
may be taken into account in determining taxable income in the manner, and subject to
the conditions, agreed to by the Service and a taxpayer. Section 1.446-1(eX3Xi)
authorizes the Service to prescribe administrative procedures setting forth the
limitations, terms, and conditions deemed necessary to permit a taxpayer to obtain
consent to change a method of accounting in accordance with S 446(e). See a/so
S 5.02 of Rev. Proc. 97-27.
When there is a change in method of accounting to which S 481(a) is applied, $
2.05(1) of Rev. Proc. 97-27 provides that income for the taxable year preceding the year
of change must be determined under the method of accounting that was then employed,
and income for the year of change and the following taxable years must be determined
under the new method of accounting as if the new method had always been used.
Taxpayer's ruling request # 3 pertains to whether EADIT associated with
depreciation method and life differences arising prior to the beginning of the year of
change (Year 1) with respect to property that was public utility property under the former
method of accounting and for which its remaining tax basis was deducted as part of the
repair component of the net $ 481(a) adjustment pursuant to Taxpayer's Consent
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page8of11
Agreement remains subject to the normalization rules of S 168(i)(9XA). Beginning with
the year of change, Taxpayer's Consent Agreement granted Taxpayer permission to
change its method of accounting for costs to repair and maintain tangible property from
capitalizing and depreciating these costs to deducting these costs under S 162.
Condition nine of the Consent Agreement provides that if any item of property
subject to the Form 31 15 is public utility property within the meaning of S 168(i)(10), a
normalization method of accounting (within the meaning of S 168(ixg)) must be used for
such public utility property. Public utility property (within the meaning of S 168(i)(10)) is
a depreciable asset. Consequently, condition nine of the Consent Agreement is
intended to apply to Taxpayer's public utility property that continues to be depreciated
for federal income tax purposes under Taxpayer's new method of accounting for the
year of change and subsequent taxable years.
When there is a change in method of accounting to which S 481(a) is applied,
income for the taxable year preceding the year of change must be determined under the
method of accounting that was then employed by Taxpayer, and income for the year of
change and the following taxable years must be determined under Taxpayer's new
method of accounting as if the new method had always been used. See $ 481(a);
S 1 .481-1(aX1 ); and $ 2.05(1 ) of Rev. Proc. 97-27 . ln other words: (1 ) Taxpayer's new
method of accounting is implemented beginning in the year of change; (2) Taxpaye/s
old method of accounting used in the taxable years preceding the year of change is not
disturbed; and (3) Taxpayer takes into account a $ a81(a) adjustment in computing
taxable income to offset any consequent omissions or duplications.
Accordingly, for public utility property in service as of the end of the taxable year
immediately preceding the year of change (Year 1), the depreciation-related ADIT
existing prior to the year of change for the changes in methods of accounting subject to
the Consent Agreement does not remain subject to the normalization method of
accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg) after implementation of the new tax
methods of accounting in the year of change and subsequent taxable years.
As stated previously, condition nine of the Consent Agreement is intended to
apply to Taxpayer's public utility property that continues to be depreciated for federal
income tax purposes under Taxpayer's new method of accounting for the year of
change and subsequent taxable years. A repair expense is an item of expense that is
deductible under S 162 and for which depreciation is not allowable. Accordingly, in
regard to ruling request 2, the ADIT resulting from the repair-related $ a81(a)
adjustment is not subject to the normalization method of accounting within the meaning
of $ 168(ixe).
Lastly, condition nine of the Consent Agreement is intended to apply to
Taxpayer's public utility property that continues to be depreciated for federal income tax
purposes under Taxpayer's new method of accounting for the year of change and
subsequent taxable years. A repair expense is an item of expense that is deductible
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page9of11
under S 162 and for which depreciation is not allowable. Accordingly, in regard to ruling
request 1, net EADIT attributable to expenditures deducted as repairs for tax purposes
under S 162 after the beginning of the year of change through the end ol Year 2
pursuant to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement and capitalized and depreciated for
regulatory and financial reporting purposes is not subject to the normalization rules of
s 168(iXeXA)
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that:
For ruling request # 1, the net EADIT resulting from expenditures (1) related to
an item of property includible in rate base and recoverable as regulatory depreciation
expense and (2) deducted as repairs under S 162 to public utility property within the
meaning of $ 168(i)(10) pursuant to the tax method of accounting for repairs permitted
in Taxpayer's Consent Agreement, is not subject to the normalization method of
accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg) and is not required to be treated as subject
to a normalization method of accounting pursuant to the Consent Agreement. As such
return of net EADIT related to such timing difference faster than ARAM would not be a
violation of the EADIT normalization rules and would not be a violation of the Consent
Agreement.
For ruling request # 2, for any public utility property within the meaning of
S 168(iX10) as of the end of the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for
the changes in tax methods of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement,
the net EADIT resulting from the repair-related component of the $ 481(a) adjustment is
not subject to the normalization method of accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg),
and is not required to be treated as subject to a normalization method of accounting
pursuant to the Consent Agreement. As such, retum of net EADIT related to such
timing difference faster than ARAM would not be a violation of the EADIT normalization
rules and would not be a violation of the Consent Agreement.
For ruling request # 3, for any public utility property within the meaning of
S 168(iX10) as of the end of the tax year immediately preceding the year of change for
the changes in tax methods of accounting subject to Taxpayer's Consent Agreement,
the net depreciation-related ADIT that existed prior to the changes in tax methods of
accounting for repairs and dispositions is not subject to the normalization method of
accounting within the meaning of S 168(ixg) even after implementation of the new tax
method of accounting and is not required to be normalized pursuant to the Consent
Agreement. As such, return of any net EADIT related to such timing difference faster
than ARAM would not be a violation of the EADIT normalization rules and would not be
a violation of the Consent Agreement.
Except as specifically set forth above, no opinion is expressed or implied
concerning the federal income tax consequences of the above described facts under
any other provision of the Code or regulations. Specifically, we are not ruling on the
ADIT resulting from the disposition-related $ a81(a) adjustment and related to the
Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page 10 of 1 1
restored tax basis of public utility property that was treated as disposed under the old
method of accounting but is not treated as disposed under the new method of
accounting.
To note, the EADIT at issue in this request does not address the excess tax
reserves resulting from the corporate tax rate decrease in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
(TCJA), Pub. L. 115-97 (131 Stat 2054). The EADIT at issue is only that as described
in this letter ruling.
This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it. Section 6110(kX3) of
the Code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent.
This ruling is based upon information and representations submitted by Taxpayer
and accompanied by penalty of perjury statements executed by an appropriate party.
While this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request
for rulings, it is subject to verification on examination.
ln accordance with the power of aftorney on file with this office, a copy of this
letter is being sent to your authorized representatives.
Sincerely
Patrick S. Kirwan
Chief, Branch 6
Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Passthroughs & Special lndustries)
cc:
Case No. SUZ-W-2G02
Exhibit No. 12
Schedule 2
M. Kahn
Page 1'l of 11