upr000065 119

^ln for the reason that when they were being rapidly retired the Company was operating at a loss. To this, the Commission does not agree hut even if the Company was operating at a loss it was taking any deficiency as an income tax fc.. write-off. « Mr. Renwick, at Page l8l, Exhibit 3, said: "I am willing that the Commission, for the purpose of deciding the case, assume that the Las Vegas Land and Water Company had other income from California operations in the years in which the amortization of defense projects were written off, against which these items could be taken as an offset." Plaintiff in opening statement (Transcript 5) spoke of the dissatis­faction with the order of the Commission, dated December 6, 1951, ancL filed supplemental complaint against the order on January 1^, 1952- Counsel for plaintiff was well aware of the reason for this order, which was necessary in order to correct an error of the Commission in its original order to comply ' with stipulation between the Company and motel operators (Exhibit W.). Mr. Renwick stated (Exhibit !)• at 317): "These are the rates proposed by the Las Vegas Land and Water Company in Exhibit W." Witness Wittwer testified (Exhibit b at 3ll+ & 15): "It is your position in the event the Commission reduces the proposed rates, we will say, by 20 percent across .the board, the rates that have been filed with the Commission now, that your rates as agreed to here should also bear that proportionate decrease?" And he responded "That is right." The Commission finds: 1 - A combined valuation of the production and distribution units to be $1,197,220.00. 2 - Upon this base the profit from actual operation during 1951 was 1 2.72$ with the new rate in operation during the last four months of 1951J and 3 - Had the same rate been in effect during all of 195-1 ike operation , f ?w'auld have netted 3 - Tc net •*?0 the operation of the combined units a return of 5-65$ .-8,