Opinion ID: 1293123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the commission's opinion

Text: The Commission's opinion awarding the refund was based on two grounds.
Invoking the emergency power statutes, [2] the Commission said that it had concluded that it properly could interpret Code §§ 58-603 and 58-661 (gross receipts taxes) to relieve gas companies of payment of such taxes upon receipts derived from emergency transfers of gas by a utility with gas to spare to another such utility with insufficient gas to meet the requirements of its customers. Borrowing from the language of § 56-250, the Commission interpreted that statute particularly to vest it with the broadest discretion . . . to authorize [a] public utility to take such actions as . . . will minimize adverse impact on the public health and safety. The opinion further explained that the Commission had determined that emergency spot sales were . . . unrelated to the exercise of franchise rights . . . and, therefore, [revenues from such sales] were distinguishable from gross receipts expected to be taxed under §§ 58-603 and 58-661.
Noting WGL's contention that the doctrine of `equitable estoppel' controls, the Commission found that WGL had transferred gas during the emergency period relying on representations made by members of our staff (a reliance justifiably established by years of prior dealings) that the transfers were not to be assessed. This finding was based upon Hughitt's testimony that, but for the Commission's representations, [t]he negotiated rates [on the sales at issue] would have been increased by an amount equal to the gross receipts tax or the gas would have been sold in some state other than Virginia where gross receipts taxes were not applicable. Characterizing that testimony as not contradicted, the Commission held that we find it absolutely incumbent to refund the taxes here in issue.