upr000280 27

• * \\ 'wfe.! f ‘ % . • \ i*' ^ i n for the reason that when they were being rapidly retired the Company was operating at a Io b s To this, the C'ojnn!scion does not agree but even if the Company was operating at a Io b b it wjas taking any deficiency aa on income tax ! I « write-off. Mr. Ronwick at Page l8l, Exhibit 3, said,* "I am willing that the i Commission, for the propose 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 defenae projects were written off, againat which these itema could be taken aa on offset." Plaintiff in opening statement (Tranacri.pt lj) epoke of the dioaatia- \ faction with the order of the Commies ioiji, dated December 6, 1951, and filed \ ' * '"u supplemental' complaint againat the order on January ik, 1952. Couneel for plaintiff was well aware of the reason fjpr this order, which was necessary1 , -* J in order tp correct an error of the Commission in its original order to comply with stipulation between the Company and motel operators (Exhibit W»). Mr. T Renwick elated (Exhibit k at 317).* "These are the rates proposed by the Las L : \ Vegas Land and Water Company in Exhibit W.v Witness Wittwer testified (Exhibit k \ at 31k & 15 ) i "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, la right." The Commies Ion 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 I951 yaB 2.72# with the new rate in operation during the last four months of 1951; and 3 * Had the same rate been in effect during all of 1951 the operation have netted 3 ? k2$. k - TV; net ‘o the operation of the combined units a return of 5.65^ .• Vn i -