upr000093 215

? 2 gineers, Conversely (with the exception of LA&SIRR Co, w.O. Mo. 5015), it is also now understood that the basic purchase price does not include any expenditures for ad­ditions and betterments incurred subsequent to September 1, 1952, In the light of this understanding, perhaps section 11 of the proposed sale contract should be clarified. that Section 1(g) of the proposed sale contract should not be considered in determining the additions and betterments included or not included in the basic purchase price, perhaps section 1G of that proposed contract should be clarified since the latter section refers to what is included in the basic purchase price which appears to embrace Section 1(g). in separating the charges to investment account to the periods prior and subsequent to September 1, 1952, we should: (1) Be guided by the date the labor was actually per­formed and the material actually installed, and not the date the accounting therefor is completed, SfOr nro.iects constructed by LVL&$f Co. and LA&SLRR (2) Be guided by the date the LYI&W Go. takes into its investment account (which is usually concurrent with its acquiring title thereto) the cost of ex­tensions constructed by and at the expense of others. In view of the above conclusions, perhaps you may wish to further clarify Section 11. Rouse, copy to you, in which I suggested that the item of $176.55 be eliminated from page 14 of the proposed sale contract because Mr. Maag advised it is no longer in existence. It appears impor­tant to do this in view of the first paragraph on page 28 of the proposed sale contract, because, if not done, this amount would be deducted from the basic purchase price. To deduct this item would not be equitable since it was brought into service in 1912 and undoubtedly was physically retir Also, since you advised in telegram B-48, May 5, 1955, Further, it is understood from, your telegram B-48 that Attention is called to my letter of May 5, 1953 to MT Enel,