Laserfiche WebLink
SUH 15 '94 16:38 PARKER POE ADAMS 919 8Z8 0564 P.11 <br /> <br /> burden of proof regarding additional capitalized interest as an <br /> element of cost. <br /> <br />8. .The values assigned by ~he County Board for data ~ocessi~g <br /> <br /> equipment are affirmed. <br /> <br />9. ~ The Taxpayer's real property, as of 1 January 1991, was not <br /> affected by economic obsolescence. The Taxpayer's argument <br /> that industry capacity utilization automatically creates <br /> obsolescence in 'che Taxpayer's real property is rejected. <br /> <br />10. In .the appeal designated 92 PTC 3I, the true value in money of <br /> the Taxpayer's real property on 1 January 1991 was <br /> $188,041,000, computed as follows: <br /> <br /> Total Cost of Bepro~uction New <br /> (Taxpayer Exhibit W at page 71) <br /> <br /> Total Cost of Replacement <br /> (Co~mission found no obsolescence <br /> in the existing boiler system) <br /> <br />Less Incurable Physical Depreciation <br />(Taxpayer Exhibit W at page 71) <br /> <br /> Subtotal <br /> <br />Note: no deduction for economic <br />obsolescence; see Finding of Fact <br />paragraph 9 above. <br /> <br />tess Curable Physical Depreciation <br />Depreciated Value of Improvements <br /> <br />Plus ~and Value <br />(Taxpayer Exhibit W) <br /> <br /> Total' Value of Real Property <br /> <br />$208,104,000. <br /> <br />$208,104,000 <br />$164,241,000 <br /> <br /> ($i 400,000) <br /> <br />$162,841,000 <br /> <br /> $2s&o9, ooo ' <br /> <br />$188~041~000 <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />/ -II <br /> <br /> <br />