upr000278 227

Hr. w. a. autoiseri (ee - Hr. A. * . Stoddard . . Mr. X, 1. Bsanett Hr. B. M, Seaeoe }? X have dlacttaeod f t v liH ir i f -JUa# 7* 1759* concerning the article to Snetoeea Heals: fur Jhne 3* 1950# wife Hr. Xeeaos and Mr* Jiaawtotc of Mr. Sense to* a office. I understand that they hare discussed toe subject of your letter vtto jon hy telephone. they Here e^latoed te no toat toe Arena ifaee Ooegeqy esse referred to to Jteainess Meeh holds tost * corporation Bay both capitalise tod teto depreciation for federal tax purposes v&m donor titoe. X oeriatoly agree with toe philosophy of auah adsoision. l to to il tost thto (Stodoa refers to to s s lt e r decision ef toe toprese Court to toe hetroit Ml son case* toteh i i apparently a t i l l toe la s* which held that a u tility could net tafce depredation for federal tor ooae ten purposes upon advances aade ly ouatenera for service extensions Mr* lendete has advised sse toot Mr. Wehe hoe always favored Charging depredation to the operettas expenses of the la s togas toad tod Hater Company upon pipeline wet east one oonetrnoted V neene of ad­venes# fro® aub&tvl&ers. S understand that in hlo report* totoh should ho fortooaatos soon* ho to not reoowtowSto* that a ll of the unrefunded. portion of onto advsaooe ho Included to too rate teas* hat that ho to reeoenendlng a euoprojstee end including only a portion # snto w n r fended advances. Since X have net had an opportunity to exantoe toe rosnlte or to discuss fully with Hr. Wthe the reaaone for hie haadilas of toe rpto haeo* I mart reserve nr opinion on tide ttw until X here toon hte report, ftiwsvor, l-fu lly agree elto h i* and vdto yam that depredation on too ffcdUUee oonotmotsd hy onto advances should ho charged In too operating expanses. Mr* Isaacs and Hr. Henwtofc era to accord with these views, CStr*mf> war. R E I N EARMR t o Reinhardt