upr000063 61

m existing tax rates, the Company would have to receive a net revenue of §59,689.00 before income taxes upon which an in­come tax at present rates of §22,554.00 would be paid to net §37,135.00, the amount necessary to provide a 6$ return on V the above mentioned rate base (Schedule IV p. 1). The error made by the Commission in computing the deficiency in revenue on this rate base is the difference between §59,689.00 and §48,571.00 or §11,118.00. If income taxes were computed at the rates now being proposed in Congress to be made retro­active to January 1, 1951, namely 27$ normal tax and 25$ sur­tax, or a total rate of 52$, the income deduction would be §18,300.00 and the net return only §30,271.00, a return of but 4,89$ on the Commission’s rate base of §618,919.72. 'ji* 3. The true deficiency in revenues of the Water Company in the test year 1951 is not less than §111,970.00 (Ex. Q) instead of §25,112.00 as found by the Commission. Thus the overall error in the Commission’s decision is not less than §86,858.00 (Schedule IV p. 2). This is the error in the Commission’s decision when the results set forth in its opinion are measured by the added revenue required to re- , turn to each, the Railroad Company and the Water Company, a 6-1/4$ return on its original Cost Rate base for the year 1951 and when operating expenses are estimated conservatively in accordance with the latest information as to actual exper­ience which is in evidence in this case. Such a comparison with the results found by the Commission is extremely conser­- 1 1 -