Was a utility's federally mandated transfer of transmission-grid control to a regional operator a taxable lease or a nontaxable management arrangement?

Subject

Taxation of Payments by Regional Transmission Operator

Plain-English summary

The regional transmission operator arrangement was nontaxable management, not a lease of the utility's high-voltage facilities. The utility retained ownership, while federal orders required independent regional operation under an open-access tariff.

FERC determined the utility's revenue requirement and recoverable costs without the operator negotiating rent. The operator collected those transmission revenues on the utility's behalf and distributed them back, while retaining tariff revenue above costs as compensation for operating the grid. The tariff and federal approvals also constrained the operator's discretion more than an ordinary lessee's control.

Because the Department found a management arrangement, it did not decide whether a hypothetical lease would qualify for a separate exemption.

What this means for you

Payments routed through an operator were distributions of the owner's regulated transmission revenue, not consideration paid from the operator's funds for use of leased property.

Common questions

Q: Was operational control a taxable lease? No.

Q: Did the utility retain ownership? Yes.

Q: Who set the utility's revenue requirement? FERC.

Citations and references

• Fla. Stat. § 212.02(10)(g) and (15)(a) — lease and sale definitions
• Fla. Stat. §§ 212.031 and 212.05(1) — real and tangible property leases
• FERC Orders 888, 889, and 2000 — regional transmission and open access
• Fla. Stat. § 213.22 — Technical Assistance Advisements

Source

• Landing page: Florida Tax Law Library
• Advisement: TAA 01A-027

Original ruling text

SUMMARY

QUESTION: Is the arrangement between a regulated electric
utility and a regional transmission organization (RTO)
established to provide unified regional control and
coordination of high voltage electricity transmission
services pursuant to an order of the federal government a
taxable lease of the utility's high voltage transmission
facilities or a management agreement?

ANSWER - Based on Facts Below: Based on review of orders
issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the
filings and proceedings before that Commission in regard
to the transactions under consideration, the arrangement
between the utility and the RTO is not a taxable lease.

May 23, 2001

Re: Technical Assistance Advisement 01A-027
Sales and Use Tax -- Taxation of Payments by Regional
Transmission Operator
Section 212.02, F.S.

Dear :

This is in response to your letter to the Florida Department of
Revenue dated March 7, 2001, in which you asked for a technical
assistance advisement concerning the taxation of payments to be
made to XXX ("Company") by a regional transmission organization
("RTO") formed in response to Order 2000 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ("FERC").

Facts

FERC was created by the Department of Energy Organization Act on
October 1, 1977. FERC derives its authority from several
federal statutes, including the Federal Power Act of 1935, the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, and the Energy

Policy Act of 1992. FERC regulates the transmission and
wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce. FERC has
no authority over retail electric markets. All four of
Florida's investor-owned electric utilities are public utilities
engaged in the transmission of electricity in interstate
commerce under the applicable federal statutes and are therefore
subject to FERC's jurisdiction. (Florida's municipal utilities
and electric cooperatives are not regulated by FERC.)

In the mid 1960's, the North American Electric Reliability
Council ("NERC") was formed as a voluntary, nonprofit
organization to ensure the reliability of electric service.
NERC is comprised of ten regional reliability councils,
including the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council ("FRCC").
FRCC comprises peninsular Florida but not the northwest
panhandle. Company and two other investor-owned utilities
subject to FERC regulation control virtually all high voltage
electric transmission facilities in the FRCC region.

Historically, cost and technological limitations led to the
development of monopolistic, self-sufficient utility companies
that owned and operated vertically integrated generation,
transmission, and distribution facilities. Beginning in the
late 1960s, economic and technological change and changes in
federal policy encouraged independent operators to construct and
operate generation facilities. Transmission technology also
improved so that it became possible to transmit higher voltages
over longer distances, enabling generation operators to reach
areas that were previously limited to local generation sources.
Transmission service, however, remained a natural monopoly, and
the new generation companies were required to purchase
transmission service. FERC began to consider and address the
impact of ownership and control of transmission facilities on
the growing competition in wholesale power. In particular, FERC
was concerned that traditional utilities might be able to use
ownership of transmission facilities to bundle their generation
and transmission and provide wholesale power at rates that
disadvantaged the new competitors.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 expanded FERC's authority to
require transmission utilities to provide wholesale transmission

services to other utilities and to independent generators. In
1996, FERC issued Orders 888 and 889 (the "1996 Orders"). The
1996 Orders were intended to remove barriers to competition in
the wholesale bulk power market. FERC indicated that a
cornerstone to achieving that goal was to ensure open,
nondiscriminatory access to transmission facilities under FERC
jurisdiction. A utility subject to FERC regulation was required
to file and obtain approval of a nondiscriminatory, open access
transmission tariff ("OATT") and to apply that tariff to its own
use of its transmission facilities on the same basis as other
users. Transmission service rates as set in an OATT would
include an amount intended to cover costs and investment in
transmission facilities plus a return on that investment. This
amount is referred to as a "revenue requirement". Each regulated
utility was also required to develop an "Open Access Same Time
Information System" ("OASIS") pursuant to which the utility
would make all information concerning and the scheduling of
existing and potential transmission access equally available to
all market participants. The 1996 Orders therefore required
"functional unbundling" of a utility's generation facilities and
transmission facilities. Operation of transmission facilities
could no longer be integrated into the utility's generation and
distribution facilities to the disadvantage of any other power
generator who wanted access to transmission lines to make
wholesale sales of electricity.

In Order 888, FERC recognized that transmission owners operating
in a heavily regulated environment had established existing
rates that factored in the cost of building their facilities and
that existing contracts were based on those rates. FERC
acknowledged that the new open access rules could result in
lower priced contracts under which those owners would be
providing services to competing generators at lower rates that
would result in "stranded costs". In addition to the revenue
requirements factored into tariff rates as discussed above,
Order 888 contemplated that the transmission owners would be
able to recover identified stranded costs in amounts and
pursuant to procedures approved by FERC. FERC's position as set
forth in the 1996 Orders was that transmission utilities must be
permitted to generate adequate revenue from the provision of
transmission services, but that they must do so in a manner that

provided all market participants with open and nondiscriminatory
access to those services.

Although Order 888 did not require divestiture of transmission
facilities or their transfer to a separate operating entity,
FERC recognized that some utilities were already engaged in
pooling transmission services. In Order 888 FERC specifically
discussed and approved, if certain criteria were met, a new
alternative pooling arrangement known as an independent system
operator ("ISO"). An approved ISO must have full and
independent operational control of transmission facilities of
the participants with the purpose of operating them as a unified
grid in an area. An ISO would be a public utility subject to
FERC's OATT and OASIS rules. ISO governance must be independent
of any market participant or class and contain representatives
of all system users. An ISO must not be owned by a market
participant and must deal at arm's length with all transmission
owners and users. Neither the ISO nor its employees should have
a financial interest in any power market participant. The
portion of the total grid operated by the ISO should be as large
as possible, and the ISO should schedule all transmission
service on the grid under its control. The ISO should have
primary responsibility for short-term reliability of grid
operations, including oversight of all maintenance of facilities
under its control. The ISO must accommodate transactions made
in a free and competitive market, remain at arm's length from
those transactions, and promote market efficiency.

On December 20, 1999, FERC issued Order 2000, which concluded
that the steps taken in Order 888 had not proved sufficient to
ensure that the transmission grid was operated in a manner
consistent with growing competition in the wholesale generation
sector. In addition, FERC stated that the evolving electric
industry required a coordinated regional approach to
transmission services. FERC concluded that "appropriate
regional institutions could improve efficiencies in grid
management through improved pricing, congestion management, more
accurate estimates of Available Transmission Capability,
improved parallel path flow management, more efficient planning,
and increased coordination between regulatory agencies". Order
2000 required every transmission utility under its jurisdiction

to take steps toward participating in a regional transmission
organization ("RTO"). Order 2000 did not propose any particular
structure for an RTO and characterized the process as voluntary
on the part of the utilities. The Order noted, however, "Our
adoption of a voluntary approach to RTO formation in this Final
Rule does not in any way preclude the exercise of any of our
authorities under the FPA to order remedies to address undue
discrimination or the exercise of market power, including the
remedy of requiring participation in an RTO, where supported by
the record". The Order also stated, "The alternative to a
voluntary process is likely to be a lengthy process that is more
likely to result in greater standardization of [FERC's] RTO
requirements among regions".

Order 2000 set forth goals and required characteristics of an
RTO. An RTO must be independent of market participants,
financially and in terms of decision making. It must have
exclusive control over rates and terms of service. Consistent
with the statement in the 1996 Orders, transmission owners were
authorized to recover their revenue requirements and stranded
costs as approved by FERC through the RTO. An RTO must serve an
appropriately large region and have operational control of
transmission facilities under its authority. No sharing or
delegation of operational functions is permitted if it affects
reliability or gives any market participant an unfair advantage.
The RTO must have exclusive control over matters of short-term
reliability, including interchange schedules and scheduled
outages. Order 2000 also set forth functions that an RTO must
perform. The RTO must be the only provider of transmission
services on facilities it controls and be solely responsible for
tariff administration and design. The RTO must address issues
of congestion management and parallel path flow, be the provider
of last resort for ancillary services, maintain an OASIS site,
monitor markets, plan for expansion, and engage in interregional
coordination.

During the spring of 2000, transmission utilities, municipal and
other utility service providers not regulated by FERC,
independent generators, and other interested parties were to
begin discussions of how to implement Order 2000 in their
region. Each transmission utility (other than one already in an

approved ISO and subject to a different timetable for RTO
compliance) was required to file with FERC by October 15, 2000,
a proposal to participate in an RTO or a filing describing its
efforts to do so, why they failed, and future plans to achieve
RTO participation. RTO proposals must provide that operational
control of transmission facilities would be transferred on a
schedule to permit the RTO to begin operating by December 15,
2001.

In compliance with Order 2000, Company and the other two
regulated utilities ("Other Utilities") in the FRCC region
participated in a series of meetings that were publicly noticed
to encourage attendance and comments from all interested
parties. The purpose was to develop a proposal for formation of
an RTO to service the FRCC region. On October 16, 2000, Company
and Other Utilities submitted a filing with FERC for the
creation of an RTO. This application was followed by a
supplemental filing on December 15, 2000. (The October 16 and
December 15 filings are referred to collectively as the
"Proposal".) Under the Proposal, a limited liability company
("LLC") would be formed as the RTO for the FRCC region. The
managing member would be a publicly traded corporation
("Corporation"). Market participants would be prohibited from
holding voting stock in Corporation. The Proposal included a
pro forma OATT that is several hundred pages long and sets forth
in very specific detail exactly how LLC will provide
transmission services, charge for those services, allocate costs
and revenues to the transmission facilities under its control,
and distribute the revenues from those services. FERC approved
certain aspects of the Proposal in regard to directors and
officers of Corporation on January 10, 2001. An advance ruling
was made on those questions in order to permit proceeding in an
orderly manner toward the mandated December 15, 2001 date for
LLC operation of a unified grid. On March 28, 2001, FERC
granted approval to the Proposal, subject to resolution of
certain issues in a subsequent filing. None of those issues is
material to this advisement.

Other Utilities will transfer ownership of their transmission
facilities to LLC in exchange for passive LLC membership
interests. Company will become a Participating Owner ("PO") and

retain ownership of its transmission facilities. Company will
transfer operational control to LLC pursuant to a Participating
Owners' Management Agreement (the "PO Agreement"). The PO
Agreement provides that its purposes include transfer of
operational control of Company's transmission facilities to LLC,
full recovery through LLC rate schedules of Company's revenue
requirement and certain other costs (e.g., start-up costs for
establishing the RTO) as provided in the OATT, and distribution
of revenues to Company as provided in the PO Agreement and the
OATT. The PO Agreement has an initial term of 20 years and
renews automatically from year to year after the initial term.
Company may terminate by providing notice 12 months prior to any
renewal date. Company may also withdraw some or all of its
facilities upon written notice. Withdrawal will be effective 12
months after notice is given or after all required federal and
state regulatory approvals for the withdrawal have been
obtained, whichever is later. LLC would be authorized to
continue providing transmission service over withdrawn Company
facilities for customers with contracts in place before the
withdrawal notice just as if the withdrawal had not occurred.
There is no provision for termination of the PO Agreement by
LLC.

LCC will exercise operational control over Company's high
voltage transmission facilities. LLC has the "obligation and
sole responsibility to engage in planning for and to direct the
expansion" of those facilities under its control. Although LLC
cannot require Company to undertake construction of expansion
projects, LLC can expand the facilities itself if Company
declines to do so. Company is required to follow LLC directions
concerning operation of the facilities. In emergencies Company
is permitted to take any action within the scope of established
rules without prior authorization but must inform LLC as soon as
practicable and follow LLC directions from that point forward.
Subject to operating protocols, Company will maintain and repair
its facilities, although LLC may determine that its own
employees should perform those functions. Company must follow
the directions of LLC regarding scheduled maintenance and permit
LLC access to the facilities as necessary for LLC to perform its
obligations. Company reserves all rights and responsibilities
that are not expressly and specifically transferred to LLC.

Company retains legal and equitable ownership of its facilities
and may sell or encumber them. Casualty risks with respect to
Company's transmission facilities remain with Company, although
LLC must obtain liability insurance for damages resulting from
its control of the facilities.

Company will file unilaterally with FERC and consistent with the
OATT for the establishment of its "annual transmission revenue
requirement". LLC has no authority over that revenue
requirement and "shall collect [Company's] FERC-approved revenue
requirement and any other FERC-approved amounts that are
collected through [LLC] rate schedules on behalf of [Company]".
Revenues must be held and distributed in accordance with the
revenue distribution protocols in the OATT. If FERC
specifically approves a stranded cost charge for Company, LLC as
agent will collect that charge and distribute it directly to
Company. LLC will unilaterally file with FERC for approval of
transmission pricing as LLC deems appropriate. The rates must,
however, permit "full recovery of the then-effective annual
transmission revenue requirement" of Company as established
under the OATT and also provide for any FERC-approved stranded
cost recovery charge for Company. LLC's rates will also reflect
its own costs. Initially, LLC will have zonal rates reflecting
the costs and revenue requirements associated with the
transmission facilities of each participating utility.
Eventually, there will be a grid-wide unified rate structure.

Section 16.19 of the PO Agreement states:

This Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed,
interpreted or applied, to create a partnership or joint
venture. This Agreement is also not intended, and shall
not be construed, interpreted or applied, to create a lease
or other similar arrangement. Instead, it is intended that
[Company] PO shall be the legal and equitable owner of its
transmission facilities with [Company] having retained
[LLC] to exercise Operational Control over its transmission
facilities that constitute Controlled Facilities in
accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement.
The obligations of the parties arising out of this
Agreement shall be several and not joint.

The Operating Protocol, an attachment to the OATT, contains
additional information on the relative rights and
responsibilities of LLC and Company in regard to transmission
facilities. That protocol provides that LCC will have various
levels of authority. LLC will exercise direct authority over
transmission facilities it owns (e.g., those transferred to LLC
by Other Utilities) and over Company facilities if LLC
determines it needs direct control over those facilities. LLC
has on-going authority to place Company's facilities under or
remove them from LLC direct control. Direct control means only
LLC has the ability to put facilities into or remove them from
service. This would be done by LLC employees based on orders
issued directly from an LLC control center or, in some cases,
routed through a PO control facility. LLC will have indirect
control over Company facilities that are subject to the PO
Agreement but which LLC has determined need not be placed under
direct control. Indirect control means that only LLC has the
authority to order the facilities into or out of service, but
Company employees execute the orders.

The OATT also provides additional guidance on the flow of
revenues between LLC and Company. Company will purchase
transmission services from LLC on the same basis as all other
users of the system under the OATT. LLC will make monthly
payments to Company based on complex formulas that allocate
revenues, costs, and usage over the entire system to determine
the portions attributable to Company's facilities included in
the system.

Requested Advisements

1. Whether the transactions between Company and LLC
   create a non-taxable management arrangement or a lease
   of Company's transmission facilities to LLC?

2. Whether, if the arrangement is a lease of Company's
   transmission facilities, that lease would be exempt
   under section 212.031(1)(a), F.S.?

Taxpayer's Position

Company believes that its transactions with LLC constitute a
non-taxable management arrangement. Company argues that the
OATT, the PO Agreement, and the various applicable protocols
circumscribe LLC's operation of Company's transmission
facilities to such degree that LLC must be viewed as managing
those facilities as part of a regional grid on behalf of
Company. Company points to various provisions of the PO
Agreement to support its position. Company also cites a Private
Letter Ruling ("PLR") 199940040 (July 13, 1999) in which the
Internal Revenue Service held that the arrangement under which
an ISO controlled the facilities of participating owners would
be viewed for federal income tax purposes as a management
arrangement rather than a lease.

Company also believes that if the arrangement is viewed as a
lease, its transmission facilities should be classified as real
property rather than tangible personal property. Company then
argues that since it is a utility and will continue to own those
facilities, any lease of them to LC would be exempt under
section 212.031(1)(a), F.S.

Applicable Law, Discussion, and Analysis

Various provisions of Chapter 212, F.S., impose tax on sales,
leases or uses of tangible personal property and on leases or
licenses to use real property. See sections 212.031, 212.05(1),
F.S. That chapter does not tax a transaction in which one party
transfers control of its property to another for that other
party to manage the property on the owner's behalf and
distribute the earnings back to the owner. Company has
correctly identified the initial inquiry in this case to be
whether the agreement between Company and LLC is one in which
LLC manages Company's transmission facilities for Company's or a
lease of those facilities to LLC. This question is a difficult
one, because the arrangement has characteristics of both types
of transactions and because the issue must be considered in the
context of the role FERC has played by effectively mandating
that regulated transmission utilities form regional
organizations that will operate the transmission facilities of
the participating utilities as a unified grid.

The definitional provisions in section 212.02, F.S., are the
proper starting point in approaching this question. In relevant
part, those definitions provide:

(10) "Lease", "let", or "rental" means leasing or renting
of living quarters or sleeping or housekeeping
accommodations in hotels, apartment houses, roominghouses,
tourist or trailer camps and real property, the same being
defined as follows:
...
(g) "Lease", "let", or "rental" also means the leasing or
rental of tangible personal property and the possession or
use thereof by the lessee or rentee for a consideration,
without transfer of the title of such property, except as
expressly provided to the contrary herein. . . .

(15) "Sale" means and includes:

(a) Any transfer of title or possession, or both, exchange,
barter, license, lease, or rental, conditional or
otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of
tangible personal property for a consideration.

In order to have a taxable lease transaction, there must be
consideration paid in respect to and in exchange for the
property being leased. In a management agreement, the manager
does not make payments to the property owner in exchange for
possession or use of the property. Instead, the manager
generally is paid a fee and operates the property on behalf of
the owner to generate revenues for the benefit of the owner.
The payments made by the manager to the owner are therefore a
distribution of that owner's own revenues rather than a payment
made from the manager's funds in exchange for use of the
property.

If the PO Agreement is viewed as a transfer of Company's
transmission facilities to LLC in exchange for payments made by
LLC to Company as consideration for those facilities, it would
be taxable as a lease. Some facts seem to support this
conclusion. LLC will combine Company's transmission facilities

with those owned by LLC to provide transmission services in the
FRCC region pursuant to a rate structure that is set to cover
all of LLC's costs (including required payments to Company) and
generate a profit for LLC. Arguably, LLC operates Company's
transmission facilities for LLC's own benefit rather than for
Company's. Company is not required to pay LLC any fee in
exchange for management services. The payments Company makes to
LLC are purchases of transmission services (including services
using Company's transmission facilities) on the same basis as
any other transmission purchaser.

The PO Agreement must, however, be viewed in the context of the
1996 Orders and Order 2000. The analysis must also take into
account the OATT and its attachments, which are referenced
throughout the PO Agreement and are essential to defining the
relationship between LLC and Company. FERC has in effect
required Company and Other Utilities to pool their transmission
facilities for operation by a separate entity that is
independent of them, will provide regional coordination, and
satisfies the OATT and OASIS requirements. Other Utilities have
determined that the best means for them to meet this goal is to
transfer their transmission facilities to an independent entity
in which they will be passive investors but which they will not
control. They will in the future receive a return on their
former transmission facilities in the form of distributions of
earnings from the profits of LLC. Company has determined that
it is better served by retaining ownership of its facilities and
receiving the stranded costs and revenue requirements from those
facilities. In order to satisfy Order 2000, however, Company
must allow LLC to manage its facilities as part of a unified
grid system with LLC's own facilities contributed by Other
Utilities.

Viewed in this context, the PO Agreement appears to be more
properly characterized as a management agreement. The following
specific facts and provisions support this conclusion:

1. The amount of the payments from LLC to Company results
   from unilateral proceedings between Company and FERC
   to establish Company's revenue requirement and other
   recoverable costs. In a lease arrangement, the lessee

is ordinarily a party to negotiations concerning the
rental payments the lessee will be required to make.

2. That portion of the LLC's rates that is attributable
   to Company's revenue requirements and other FERCapproved recoverable costs is collected by LLC "on
   behalf of" Company and must be distributed to Company.
   A lessee operating rented property collects the
   revenues on its own behalf and is obligated to pay
   rent from its own funds.

3. The OATT rates will return to LLC a profit over and
   above all of its operating costs and revenue
   distribution payments it is required to make. To the
   extent that return is attributable to Company's
   facilities, LLC is in effect being compensated for its
   management services. Management service providers are
   often compensated by retaining revenues above
   specified minimum levels.

4. The pro forma OATT has been crafted after months of
   meetings and negotiations involving Company, Other
   Utilities, other market participants, and any other
   interested parties that wanted to participate. Before
   taking effect, it must be approved by FERC. Once in
   effect, it will govern every important aspect of LLC's
   operation of Company's transmission facilities. A
   lessee ordinarily acquires an identifiable property
   interest that, while it may be subject to some
   restrictions, includes a degree of discretion and
   control not found in this case.

5. Company is currently receiving its revenue requirement
   pursuant to its present OATT in the form of charges
   for transmission services provided over its
   facilities, and those charges for transmission
   services are not subject to sales tax. If FERC
   approves the Proposal and it is implemented, Company
   will receive its revenue requirement in the form of a
   distribution of charges for transmission services
   collected by LLC on Company's behalf. The taxability

of those amounts should not depend on whether Company
collects them directly from transmission users or
collects them indirectly through LLC.

Section 16.19 of the PO Agreement provides there is no intent to
create a lessor/lessee relationship. A statement of intent that
does not accurately reflect the facts about a transaction or the
other terms of an agreement cannot dictate tax results, but that
is not the case with the PO Agreement. The OATT and PO
Agreement are the response of Company and Other Utilities to
FERC's mandate that they restructure the manner in which their
transmission facilities are operated by forming an RTO. There
are several methods by which Company could transfer operational
control of its facilities to LLC. They could be transferred
outright as a capital contribution, as Other Utilities are
doing. They could be sold or leased to LLC, if FERC would
approve the terms of the sale or lease. Order 2000 specifically
noted, however, that it would be acceptable for a utility to
transfer operational control but retain the right to receive
revenue requirements and stranded costs associated with
ownership of the facilities. The PO Agreement is intended to
satisfy Order 2000, leave ownership with Company, and
effectively make LLC Company's agent for purposes of collection
and distribution of the revenues from operation of [Company's]
facilities. It is inherent in that arrangement that Company
transfer use and control of its facilities to LLC and that LLC
make certain payments to Company. When all the facts and
circumstances are taken into account, the parties'
characterization of their agreement as a management arrangement
rather than a lease should be respected in this case.

Advisements

1. For purposes of Chapter 212, F.S., the transactions between
   Company and LLC create a non-taxable management arrangement
   rather than a lease of Company's transmission facilities to
   LLC.

2. Because the agreement between Company and LLC is a
   management arrangement and not a lease of Company's
   transmission facilities, it is not necessary to address

Taxpayer's second requested advisement concerning whether a
lease of its transmission facilities would be exempt under
section 212.031, F.S.

Closing Statement

This response constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement
under s. 213.22, F.S., which is binding on the Department only
under the facts and circumstances described in the request for
this advice, as specified in s. 213.22, F.S. Our response is
predicated on those facts and the specific situation summarized
above. You are advised that subsequent statutory or
administrative rule changes, or judicial interpretations of the
statutes or rules upon which this advice is based, may subject
similar future transactions to a different treatment than
expressed in this response.

You are further advised that this response, your request and
related backup documents are public records under Chapter 119,
F.S., and are subject to disclosure to the public under the
conditions of section 213.22, F.S. Confidential information
must be deleted before public disclosure. In an effort to
protect confidentiality, we request you provide the undersigned
with an edited copy of your request for Technical Assistance
Advisement, the backup material and this response, deleting
names, addresses and any other details which might lead to
identification of the taxpayer. Your response should be
received by the Department within 15 days of the date of this
letter.

Sincerely,

Linda W. Bridges
Senior Attorney
Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution
(850) 922-9412

LWB/
Control #: 44274