Cover Barely Does the Job

Question: You had a recent column that mentioned insulated blankets for water heaters. Would it be possible to do a follow-up? Several years ago, we ordered one from the gas company (the form was with our bill), but there was a problem when we tried to put it on.

It had a rectangle shape. When we put it on the long way, it only covered about a third of the circumference, and there was no way to keep it in place.

The picture in the how-to pamphlet indicated that it wrapped around the other way. So we did it that way and, sure enough, it hooked to itself. The only trouble was that it covered only the middle third of the water heater.

The logic was akin to telling someone to keep warm in a storm by putting on a wide belt and nothing else.

The Southern California Gas Co. is still advertising the blankets, and the pictures on the ad still show a completely covered water heater as they did before. Have they really fixed the blankets, or is it just another joke?--A.P.

Answer: I stand in awe of your patience. This happened “several years ago,” and you’ve been limping along ever since with a semi-nude water heater?

When we brought the subject up with the gas company’s Denise King, she thought we were talking about last month when, sure enough, the manufacturer did ship some skimpy blankets, which got into the hands of customers before the problem was detected. Deliveries were promptly halted, and replacements were dispatched. The whole thing was resolved in a few days.

There’s no record of this having happened several years ago, however, although one might make the cynical observation that if the manufacturer goofed last month, there could have been a few isolated misfits that slipped through several years ago too.

Naturally, the blankets aren’t of the one-size-fits-all variety, according to King. There’s the size to fit 10- to 50-gallon water heaters ($14.95), the 60- to 80-gallon size ($19.95) and the jumbo, 85- to 100-gallon model ($24.95). The Times’ home-improvement writer, Dale Baldwin, tells me that while the 50-gallon heater is standard for a two-bath home, it’s a little skimpy if there are kiddies around. And an 88-gallon heater is recommended for homes with electric water heaters.

And so the suspicion arises: Is it possible that you have the jumbo water heater in your home and inadvertently ordered the smallest blanket?

Although there’s normally a 60-day limit on returned merchandise, King adds, the gas company might be inclined to bend this rule a bit in your case if you’ll take your midget blanket into the nearest gas-company office.

Q: I am having trouble with a Government National Mortgage Assn. (GNMA) certificate bought in 1980. At that time, I was informed by the broker that the certificate was state tax free. I made out my state taxes regularly with this in mind.

In 1984, the state ruled that such notes were not tax free, even though they were backed by the federal government. This decision was based on a court decision in Illinois.

I then learned that state taxes with interest were due retroactively, despite the fact that the new ruling was made in ’84. This is the same Franchise Tax Board that has given tax scofflaws a $100-million amnesty while honest taxpayers like me are assessed for back taxes though the ruling was recently made. The fair and just thing to do would be to tax holders of such notes only from the beginning of the ruling. I have already paid the 1980 tax ($195) plus about $60 in interest. I want this back!--E.N.

A: There’s a long, uneasy silence on the part of the Franchise Tax Board’s normally talkative press representatives when this subject comes up.

“I have to admit that I see the man’s point,” one of them said.

For whatever comfort you can take in it (which, presumably, is not much because you’ve already paid the ’80 tax), the Franchise Tax Board isn’t actively pursuing individuals for retroactive payment of taxes on these GNMA (so-called Ginnie Mae or pass-through) certificates.

“It arises in the case of an audit,” he continues, “and our legal people tell me they’ve only had two such instances come up so far.

“I don’t really know whether it’s fair or not, but we’ve frequently had to go back and reevaluate our position on other issues.”

That is to say, they’ll do this if enough of a rhubarb arises over an issue like this. But it doesn’t seem too likely since the state isn’t actively chasing individuals for the retroactive interest.

Have you noticed how carefully neither of us is advising you what to do about your retroactive taxes for ‘81, ’82 and ‘83?

Don G. Campbell cannot answer mail personally but will respond in this column to consumer questions of general interest. Write to Consumer VIEWS, You section, The Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles 90053.