Court Opinion

ID: 9462343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:39:06.064221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:33.326982
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result but not for the reasons given in the majority opinion.
If “effective tax rate”, upon which the majority opinion is based, means what I think it does: the taxable income of the company divided into the tax it pays to reach an empirical percentage, which is called a rate, then that is essentially the system and formula used in the pre-1966 computations rather than using the statutory rates as in 1966.
I concur in the result because Piedmont seeks to have its subsidy allowed under the rules for 1966 and at the same time, for the same year, seeks to have its pay-back computed according to the rules for pre-1966 years.
If Piedmont had consented, which it could have, to using the pre-1966 rules for the year 1966, then it could have had the investment tax credit taken account of both in the allowance of the subsidy and in the pay-back computation. But, since it did not so consent, under the applicable regulations, 44 CAB 637 at 649 (1966), it has made its choice, which is binding.