U.S. Supreme Court, (January 09, 1933)
Docket number: 215
/us/287/551/case.html
Permanent Link:
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20017131
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017131
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
U.S. Supreme Court - Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 380 U.S. 624 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Swank, 451 U.S. 571 (1981)
U.S. Supreme Court - Commissioner v. Engle,, 464 U.S. 206 (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court PALMER v. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551 (1933)
[Page 287 U.S. 551, 556] tive terminology which may be applied to them in the local law are both irrelevant. Section 214(a)(10) of the Revenue Act of 1921, so far as now material, is printed in the margin. [Footnote 1] It will be observed that the statute directs that reasonable allowance for depletion be made as a deduction in computing net taxable income, 'in the case of ... oil and gas wells , ... according to the peculiar conditions in each case.' The allowance to the taxpayer is not restricted by the words of the statute to cases of any particular class or to any special form of legal interest in the oil well. It is true that under article 215 of Treasury Regulations 62 the lessor of an oil or gas well is entitled to a depletion allowance upon the bonus and royalties received from the lessee. See Murphy Oil Company v. Burnet, supra. But there is nothing in the statute or regulations which confines depletion allowances to those who are technically lessors. The concluding sentence of the section that 'In the case of leases the deductions allowed by this paragraph shall be equitably appor- [Page 287 U.S. 551, 559] to the discoverer if he operates the well as owner or lessee, or if he leases it to another. It would be an anomaly if that policy were to be defeated and all benefit of the depletion allowance withheld because he chose to secure the return of his capital investment by stipulating for a share of the oil produced from the discovered well through operation by another. The bonus received by the Smitherman partnership was a return pro tanto of the petitioner's capital investment in the oil, in anticipation of its extraction, resulting in a corresponding diminution in the unit depletion allowance upon the royalty oil as produced. Compare Murphy Oil Co. v. Burnet, supra. Reversed. Footnotes Footnote 1 'Sec. 214. (a) That in computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: ...'(10) In the case of mines, oil and gas wells, ... a reasonable allowance for depletion and for depreciation of improvements, according to the peculiar conditions in each case, based upon cost including cost of development not otherwise deducted: ... Provided further, That in the case of mines, oil and gas wells, discovered by the taxpayer, on or after March 1, 1913, and not acquired as the result of purchase of a proven tract or lease, where the fair market value of the property is materially disproportionate to the cost, the depletion allowance shall be based upon the fair market value of the property at the date of the discovery, or within thirty days thereafter: ... Such reasonable allowance in all the above cases to be made under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary. In the case of leases the deductions allowed by this paragraph shall be equitably apportioned between the lessor and lessee. ...'Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access