Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ambrose
| Decision Date | 08 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 10053.,10053. |
| Citation | 127 F.2d 47 |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AMBROSE (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Edward First, Sewall Key, and J. Louis Monarch, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., and Claude R. Marshall, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Geo. S. Atkinson, of Dallas, Tex., for respondents W. D. Ambrose and Elizabeth Anne Ambrose.
Conard E. Cooper, of Tulsa, Okl., amicus curiae.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
These petitions for review present a single question involving income taxes for the year 1934. That question is whether these taxpayers were entitled, under Article 23(m)-16 of Treasury Regulations 86, to deduct from gross income as business expenses the intangible drilling and development costs borne by them in connection with the drilling of four oil wells on their property during the tax year.
The taxpayers owned a seven-eighths working interest in an oil and gas lease. Four wells were drilled upon the property by the Ross Drilling Company under cost-plus contracts, the company receiving as compensation for its services the actual cost of each project to it, plus a lump sum payment the amount of which depended upon the actual cost of the drilling. The contracts contained no provision relating to certain of the intangible drilling and development costs, and these items were furnished by the taxpayers. The remaining intangible drilling costs consisted of material and labor procured by the Ross Drilling Company subject to the approval of the taxpayers, and which were paid for by the taxpayers. All of these intangible drilling costs were deducted in respondents' tax returns as business expenses.
Article 23(m)-16 of Treasury Regulations 86 relates to intangible drilling and development costs, and gives the taxpayer an option either to deduct such costs from gross income as an expense, or to charge them to his capital account. The article also provides that such costs shall not be excepted from the option merely because they are incurred under a contract providing for the drilling of a well to an agreed depth or depths at an equal price per foot or other unit of measurement.
In the construction of this regulation the decisions uniformly have declined to accord a taxpayer any option where the drilling was accomplished under turnkey contracts. The reasoning has been that, under a turnkey contract, the drilling contractor obligates himself to furnish all supplies and equipment and perform every act required in the completion of the well; that nothing is required of the lease operator except the payment of the agreed price; and that the acquisition of a producing oil well for a price increases the invested capital of the purchaser to the extent of that price.1 On the other hand, the intangible costs of drilling, under footage contracts and in cases where the lease operator is also the driller, clearly fall within the option.2
In this case the Commissioner first contended that the wells were drilled under a turnkey contract, but the Board of Tax Appeals found that the agreement here made was neither a turnkey nor a footage contract. Accordingly, it concluded that the cases turned upon whether the Ross Drilling Company was an independent contractor or was the agent and employee of the taxpayers. It found that the relationship was one of agency, and sustained the taxpayers' right to the option exercised.3 The Commissioner apparently has acquiesced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioner of Int. Rev. v. Rowan Drilling Co.
...109 F.2d 854; Hardesty v. Commissioner, supra. 7 Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Co., 308 U.S. 90, 60 S.Ct. 18, 84 L.Ed. 101. 8 Commissioner v. Ambrose, 5 Cir., 127 F.2d 47, and cases there 9 United States v. George, 228 U.S. 14, 33 S.Ct. 412, 57 L.Ed. 712. 10 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Code, § 23(a). 11......
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Jones
...after abandoning it and salvaging what is salvable, can be treated as a realized loss is not here in question." And, in Commissioner v. Ambrose, 5 Cir., 127 F.2d 47, 48, the court held intangible drilling costs were deductible where a well was drilled under a cost-plus contract, the court s......
-
Bernuth v. CIR, 209
...be capital in nature, on the theory that when a taxpayer bought a completed well, he had acquired a capital asset. See Commissioner v. Ambrose, 127 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1942); J. K. Hughes Oil Co. v. Bass, 62 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1932), cert. denied, 289 U.S. 726, 53 S.Ct. 523, 77 L.Ed. 1475 (19......
-
Harper Oil Company v. United States, No. 202-68.
...is not open to question." 4. In many cases the regulation was applied without challenge. See, for example, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ambrose, 127 F.2d 47 (5 Cir. 1942). In others its validity was assumed for purposes of the appellate review. See Estate of Goodall v. Commissioner o......