UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
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
Transcription
Los Angeles, May 13, 1943 Mr. T. W. Bockes: co - Mr. R. Wlpprecht In connection with accounting practices of the LVLAWCO., you may be interested In the case of Detroit Edison Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue decided by the U. 8.Supreme Court May 3, reported in advance sheet Ho. 675, October Tern, 1942, In this case the Edison Company apparently had a rule similar to rule 9-a of the Water Company whereby potential customers who desired extensions of facilities were obliged to advance the estimated cost thereof^ suoh advances being refundable under certain conditions. The Edleon Company claimed as a base for computing depreoiatlon investment in suoh extended facilities for which it was reimbursed by the customers, and the Supreme Court stated that suoh practice w e improper. EEB:brh E. E. Bennett
