Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Applying the uniform capitalization rules to oil and gas properties

Article Abstract:

The uniform capitalization, or unicap, rules appear applicable to a number of oil and gas production costs, despite the intangible drilling costs (IDC) exception. Although the exception excludes most expenses, applicable preproduction expenses and interest must be capitalized. The unicap rules are inapplicable to IDC expenses such as fuel, supplies, repairs, and salaries, which constitute the majority of drilling-related costs.

Author: Hineman, Thomas G.
Publisher: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Taxation of Investments
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-9115
Year: 1996
Public Finance Activities, Tax Deductions & Exemptions, OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION, Oil & Gas Extraction, United States, Laws, regulations and rules, Gas industry, Capital investments, Oil fields, Tax deductions, Natural gas exploration, Tax exclusion, Petroleum mining, Oil and gas exploration, Petroleum exploration, Oil well drilling

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Oil and gas investments: the depletion tax preference controversy

Article Abstract:

Controversy exists about which costs can be used in the adjusted property basis for the excess percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas. IRC section 57(a)(1) defines the depletion tax preference using adjusted property. Hill v US allows ordinary meanings for adjusted basis and as a result the IRS has received over $400 million in tax refund claims.

Author: Hineman, Thomas G.
Publisher: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Taxation of Investments
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-9115
Year: 1992
Investments

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Supreme Court excludes tangible property from adjusted basis of mineral deposit for AMT purposes

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court removed tangible property from an adjusted basis in United States v. Hill. The basis was for a mineral depletion allowance under the alternative minimum tax. The Court used an analogy to a sale under IRC section 1016. The Court also found that a contrary use of basis would create an economic multiplier effect which was undesirable.

Author: Hineman, Thomas G.
Publisher: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Taxation of Investments
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-9115
Year: 1993
Minimum tax, Basis (Taxation)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Taxation, Cases, Depletion allowances
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Proper venue for post-trial rule 41(e) motions to return seized property. Pendent venue: a doctrine in search of a theory
  • Abstracts: Cleaning up others' waste can create severe financial and legal problems. Legal change is creeping slowly in U.K
  • Abstracts: Seeking a cure; election-year debate on health care has partisan overtones. Ringing out the 103rd; a partisan Congress closes with substantial list of measures passed
  • Abstracts: Employee plans: guidelines for the resolution of qualification violations. Administrative appeals of employee plan cases within the Internal Revenue Service
  • Abstracts: Deadline for submission of certain regional prototype, M & P and volume submitter plans extended. Labor Department clarifies application of plan loan requirements to loans made to owner and shareholder employees
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.