Case Name: FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-10
Citations: 264 F.3d 1313
Docket Number: No. 99-15389
Parties: FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before BLACK, FAY and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 264
Pages: 1313–1314

Head Matter:
FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
No. 99-15389.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 10, 2001.
Richard P. Swanson, New York City, for Florida Progress Corp.
Bruce R. Ellison, Paula K. Speck, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S.

Opinion:
OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before BLACK, FAY and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This court issued an unpublished opinion in this case affirming the district court's decision, with a dissent. The appellant Florida Progress Corporation has petitioned for rehearing,' asking in part that this court publish its opinion in order to provide guidance on the second issue Florida Progress raises — the immediate deduc-tibility of trenching costs. The petition is GRANTED to that extent we vacate our unpublished opinion and substitute the following opinion, for publication. The petition is otherwise DENIED.
Florida Progress Corporation, which the parties refer to as Florida Power, appeals following summary judgment against it in its suit for recovery of taxes paid for the tax years 1982 through 1985. Florida Power presents two issues: first, whether under 26 U.S.C. § 118(b) (which was repealed in 1986), it was entitled to exclude from income certain fees paid by customers to cover the marginal costs of burying electric lines serving the customers' premises, rather than stringing the lines overhead; and second, whether trenching costs (roughly speaking, the marginal costs of burying the lines rather than running them overhead) were properly expensed under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a) rather than capitalized and depreciated as contemplated by 26 U.S.C. § 263. Having reviewed the authorities the parties cite and considered the parties' arguments, we agree with the district court's analysis of these issues and affirm for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion, which is published at 156 F.Supp.2d 1265 (2001).
AFFIRMED.