|
|
Enron Mail |
As you may recall we have been arguing with the MN Dept. of Revenue for years
over whether or not natural gas used as a compressor fuel was subject to the Minnesota use tax. Great Lakes has been in court with the DOR over this same issue. Today I received the following, which is an internal memo that was circulated in the Dorsey & Whitney law firm, which has been representing Great Lakes announcing a favorable ruling. ---------------------- Forwarded by Lon Stanton/ET&S/Enron on 11/21/2000 10:54 AM --------------------------- "Ahern, Michael" <Ahern.Michael@dorseylaw.com< on 11/21/2000 10:18:28 AM To: "Stanton, Lon (E-mail)" <lstanto@enron.com< cc: Subject: FW: Litigation News Lon, thought you might be interested in this. < -----Original Message----- < From: Buckvold, Bob < Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 9:04 AM < To: TRT All; Dirks, Katy; Frederick, Gloria; Snow-Samanant, Julie; < Starkey, Melissa; Hinkley, Sally < Subject: Litigation News < < In a successful collaboration between the Tax Department and the < Trial Department, Jack Windhorst and Chris Shaheen went to trial in < Minnesota Tax Court and obtained a $1.5 million judgment for our client, < Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. Partnership. Great Lakes transmits < natural gas on behalf of shippers through an interstate pipeline system < that runs through various states, including Minnesota. The pressure of < the gas decreases as it moves through the pipeline system. Great Lakes < has five compressor stations along its pipeline in Minnesota, at which < separators and compressor engines refine the gas and increase the pressure < of the gas so that it will continue to flow through the pipeline. Some of < the natural gas in the system is burned as fuel by the compressor engines. < < The Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue determined that Great Lakes < must pay "use tax" for the compressor fuel gas and, in a 1998 Order, < denied Great Lakes' claim for a refund of use taxes paid in 1994 and 1995. < At a two day trial in February, Great Lakes presented fact and expert < testimony supporting its contention that the compressor fuel was consumed < in "industrial production" and therefore was exempt from taxation under < the "industrial production exemption." The Commisioner argued that Great < Lakes was simply transporting the gas and therefore did not qualify for < the exemption. After extensive post-trial briefing, the court issued an < opinion on November 16 reversing the Commissioner's Order and entering < judgment for Great Lakes. The decision should result in millions of < dollars in additional savings for Great Lakes for tax years not directly < at issue in the case. <
|