Court Opinion

ID: 9418814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:40:12.212705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:11.187532
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Butler,
concurring.
The evidence does not show that the amounts taken by the company from revenue and charged to the depreciation reserve were required for the maintenance of the property or that the amounts allowed by the lower court for that purpose were needed. The ruling in condemnation of the charges to the depreciation reserve is so important that, even at the risk of duplication, emphasis should be laid upon some facts and reasons that may be cited in its support.
The court’s opinion discloses the principle followed for the ascertainment of the amounts annually so charged. It is the straight line method calculated on cost less salvage.1 That method was prescribed by the Interstate *177Commerce Commission by an order effective January 1, 1913, establishing the uniform system of accounts for telephone companies.2 The evidence requires a finding that the company faithfully followed the prescribed system. The state commission continuously watched over the *178company’s handling of the depreciation reserve account.
The table next below shows by years in column (1) the intrastate reserve balances, in (2) the intrastate book cost of the property and in (3) percentages that the balances are of the cost.
TABLE I.
(1) (2) (3)
1923 ..;.......,......... $26,797,000 $95,074,135 28.1%
1924 .................... 29,316,000 105,291,980 27.8
1925 .................... 32,155,000 117,730,536 27.3
1926 .................... 35, 572,000 130, 857, 355 27.1
1927 .................... 39,352,000 146,173,197 26.9
1928 .................... 42,769, 000 159, 622, 212 26.7
1929 .................... .44, 515, 000 168, 988,816 26.2
1930 .................... 45,829,000 178,157,620 25.9
1931 .................... 48,362,000 181,925,963 26.
The cost of the property includes from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 paid for land which is not depreciable, and $13,000,000 to $18,000,000 paid for buildings having a long service life. There are other important and relatively permanent plant elements. These facts suggest that the percentages shown in the table are considerably lower than the actual relation of reserve balances to cost of depreciable parts of the property. While much of the plant is new, the reserve was piled up at about the rate that the cost of plant increased. The balances held in respect of all property, interstate and intrastate, increased from about $4,000,000 in 1911 to about $26,000,-*179000 in 1922. The amounts attributable to the intrastate property alone show an average annual increase of more than $2,300,000. That amount is greatly in excess of the reduction of revenue that would have resulted if the rate order had been enforced.
The table below shows by years in column (1) the amounts actually expended for current maintenance, in column (2) the amounts charged to depreciation reserve, in column (3) the total of both.
TABLE II.
(1) (2) (3)
1923 ................... $5,643,623 $4,222,000 $9,865,623
1924 ................... 6,043,737 4,470,000 10,513,737
1925 ................... 6,563,193 5,048,000 11,611,193
1926 ................... 7,714,364 5,767,000 13,481,364
1927 ................... 8,849,550 6,335,000 ' 15,184,550
1928 ................... 9,941,143 7,009,000 16,950,143
1929 ................... 10,671,526 7,436,000 18,107,526
1930 ................... 11,372,858 7,865,000 19,237,858
1931 ................... 10,842,053 8,133,000 18,975,053
The importance of the amounts involved is illustrated by the following table which shows by years (1) expenditures for current maintenance plus charges to depreciation reserve, in (2) revenues, in (3) the percentages that the former are of the latter.
TABLE III.
(1) (2) (3)
1923 ...................... $9,865,623 $37,146,181 26.5%
1924 ...................... 10,513,737 39,653,954 26.5
1925 ...............'....... 11,611,193 42,560,451 27.2
1926 ...................... 13,481,364 45,932,698 29.3
1927 ...................... 15,184,550 49,163,580 30.8
1928 ...................... 16,950,143 53,677,760 31.5
1929 ...................... 18,107,526 58,279,602 31
1930....;................. 19,237,858 58,698,263 32.7
1931...................... 18,975,053 56,496,299 33.5
*180The next table gives similar information. It shows by years in column (1) actual expenditures for maintenance plus charges to the reserve, in (2)- the total of all operating expenses and in (3) the percentages that the former are of the latter.
TABLE IV.
(1) (2) (3)
1923 ...................... $9,865,623 $31,550,286 31.2%
1924 ...................... 10,513,737 33,275,574 31.5
1925 ...................... 11,611,193 35,649,160 32.5
1926 ...................... 13,481,364 38,893,042 34.6
1927 ...................... 15,184,550 42,142,649 36
1928 ...................... 16,950,143 45,704,899 37
1929 ...................... 18,107,526 48,489,647 39.4
1930 ...................... 19,237,858 49,319,993 39
1931 ...................... 18,975,053 47,904,196 39.5
The actual annual expenditures to keep .the plant in proper condition for service are made 'up of the amounts included in current maintenance and those taken from the depreciation reserve. The table next below is illustrative and is intended to- show by years in column (1) that total, in column (2) the revenue, in (3) the percentage that the former is of the latter.
TABLE V.
(1) (2) (3)
1924 $7,994,737 $39, 653, 954 20.1%
1925 8,772,193 42, 560,451 20. 6
1926 10,064,364 45,163,580 21.8
1927 11,404,550 49,163,580 23.1
1928 13,533,143 53,677,760 25.2
1929 16,361, 526 58,279,602 28
1930 17,923,858 58,698,263 30.5
1931 16,442,053 56,496,299 29.1
The purpose of this table is to compare the percentage in each year with the percentage in each of the other years. It is to be observed that the lowest is 20.1% (1924) and the highest 30.5% (1930). This comparison *181serves to test the claim that the depreciation reserve is needed in order to equalize annual cost of upkeep in relation to revenue. If the period covered is typical, the last statement strongly suggests that no reserve account is necessary for that purpose. And that impression is confirmed by a similar comparison of the percentages in Table IV. It shows the relation of current maintenance plus depreciation reserve charges to revenue. Comparing the percentage in each year (during the period covered by Table Y) with the percentage in each of the other years, the lowest is 31.5% (1924), the highest is 39.5 (1931)..
From the foregoing it justly may be inferred that charges made according to the principle followed by the company create reserves much in excess of what is needed for maintenance. The balances carried by the company include large amounts that never can be used for the purposes for which the reserve was created. In the long run the amounts thus unnecessarily taken from revenue will reach about one-half the total cost of all depreciable parts of the plant. The only legitimate purpose of the reserve is to equalize expenditures for maintenance so as to take from the revenue earned in each year its fair share of the burden. To the extent that the annual charges include amounts that will not be required for that purpose, the account misrepresents the cost of the service.
The company’s' properties constitute a complex and highly developed instrumentality containing many classes of items that require renewal from time to time. But, taken as a whole, the plant must be deemed to be permanent. It never was intended to be new in all its parts. It would be impossible to make it so. Expenditures in an attempt to accomplish that would be wasteful. Amounts sufficient to create a reserve balance that is the same percentage of total cost of depreciable items as their age is of their total service life cannot be accepted as legitimate *182additions to operating expenses. In the absence of proof definitely establishing what annual deductions from revenues were necessary for adequate maintenance of the property, the company is not entitled to have the rate order set aside as confiscatory.

 This is not in harmony with the principle of our decision in United Railways v. West, 280 U.S. 234, 253-254, which requires replacement cost to be taken as the basis of calculation.

 The following is § 23, Uniform System of Accounts for Telephone Companies, promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, effective January 1, 1913. It will serve to disclose the underlying principle on which the reserve charges are made.
“Depreciation of Plant and Equipment. — Telephone companies should include in operating expenses depreciation charges for the purpose of creating proper and adequate reserves to cover the expenses of depreciation currently accruing in the tangible fixed capital. By expense of depreciation is meant—
(a) The losses suffered through the current lessening in value of tangible property from wear and tear (not covered by current repairs).
(b) Obsolescence or inadequacy resulting from age, physical change, or supersession by reason of new inventions and discoveries, changes in popular demand, or public requirements, and
(c) Losses suffered through destruction of property by extraordinary casualties.
The amount charged as expense of depreciation should be based upon rules determined by the accounting company. Such rules may be derived from a consideration of the company’s history and experience. Companies should be prepared to furnish the Commission, upon demand, the rules and a sworn statement of the facts, expert opinions, and estimates upon which they are based.
The estimate for depreciation of physical property should take into account—
(a) The gradual deterioration and ultimate retirement of units of property which may be satisfactorily individualized, such as buildings, machines, valuable instruments, etc., to the end that by the time such units of property go out of service there shall have been accumulated a reserve equal to the original money cost of such property plus expenses incident to retirement less the value of any salvage.
(b) The depreciation accruing in property which cannot be readily individualized, such as pole lines, wires, cables, or other continuous structures, where expenditures for repairs or replacements of individual parts ordinarily are not actually made until the *178later years of tbe life in service of such property, and when made may, therefore, be classed, as extraordinary repairs.
The rate of depreciation should be fixed so as to distribute, as nearly as may be, evenly throughout the life of the depreciating property the burden of repairs and the cost of capital consumed in operations during a given month or year, and should be based upon the average life of the units comprised in the respective classes of property, . . ,”