Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000062 217

Image

File
Download upr000062-217.tif (image/tiff; 26.88 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000062-217
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    'T.'/W m General and adalnia trat ive expense# nisti, in the I suwtery reflect the following* % 1950 WWt*WMi|sw6P Item 1049 Recorded Estimated Incurred at h*V* #23,870 $85,600 #86,600 allocated ^ - 9,046 - SalOO $95,870 #54,646 155,700 Further analysis of these figures will be available with additional reclassification for purpose of the exhibit* isepreelatien expense is predicated en the lives and rates in use. in m? minim such rates could be increased* Taxes, other than income, for 1950 afloat * income taxes hare been cobs puted as If the as well as the LA&&LERCO* filed separate tax returns* However, the two have been cornsIderfd ae one, insofar aa the amount of the taxable net ineeae la involved, i# e* the classification for corporations In excess of 150,000 annual net income has been used* % a# doing, it makes no difference which of the two corporation* are treated separately, as on page 8, or if the operations are isaergod* This would appear proper, as a difference in net earnings should not two permitted for .rate purposes, merely by the devise of the as- sumption as to corporate identity where the physical' properties are as one and under Oowhen e^twei« . the LVXJsWCo* and the LAAStFECo* are entitled to be treated &e a separate corporation for Income tax pmpoaes* The customer# . of the feVLiCo* should not fee burdened, nor should they profife through any consolidated tax return of the holding company, 1# e*