Exploration Co. v. United States
This text of 672 F. Supp. 258 (Exploration Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM RULING
Pending for determination are The Exploration Company of Louisiana, Inc.’s (“ECL”) and the United States of America’s cross motions for summary judgment. ECL contends it was disallowed a refund for windfall profit tax withheld for the year 1983 in the amount of $146,437.83. ECL claims that it is an “independent producer,” and, therefore, is eligible for reduced tax rates for its tier 1 production and for the stripper well exemption for certain tier 2 production attributable to its interests in certain leases in the Vinton Dome Field property in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The Government opposes, asserting ECL does not qualify as an independent producer. This argument is based on several grounds, which include:
(1) The interest owned by ECL was not an operating mineral interest in existence as such on January 1, 1980, and, thus, production from such an interest is not “independent producer oil”; and
(2) ECL does not qualify for the independent producer or stripper well exemptions because its interest had been held by a non-independent producer.
Finding the Government’s first argument dispositive, ECL’s motion for summary judgment is Denied, and the Government’s motion is Granted.
The mineral interests in the Vinton Dome Field property involved in this matter includes acreage covered by the “G Lease”, the “W Lease”, the “M Lease”, the “L Lease”, the “BB Lease”, and the “F.H. Gray Units A, B, C and D Lease.” These leases were operated by Union Oil Company of California (“Union”) as lessee under the various term hydrocarbon leases granted by Matilda Gray and William Gray between 1941 and 1943. The Grays retained a royalty interest and a right to reversion of the working interest at the expiration of the term of each lease. These leases expired on December 1, 1982.1
Effective upon the expiration of Union’s leases, the Grays2 entered into a second group of hydrocarbon term leases with Marsden Miller, Jr. and William Huís. The leases covered the “BB, L, M, G, W and [260]*260F.H. Gray Leases,” and reserved a 30% royalty interest in all but the F.H. Gray Lease, where the Grays retained an overriding royalty. The effective date for these leases was December 2, 1982.3 Miller and Huls immediately assigned (subleased) their interests in these leases to ECL, retaining 2% of an 8/8 overriding royalty. ECL assumed the responsibilities as operator for the various leases.
The operating mineral interest in the instant property was owned, held, developed and operated by Union, a major oil company, retailer and refiner, from 1941 until December 1, 1982. As an integrated oil company, Union at no time qualified as an independent producer within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 4992(b). However, for all quarters between September 30, 1979, and December 2, 1982, the Grays, Miller and Huís, and ECL met the prerequisites for classifying as an independent producer. ECL also met these requirements during the year 1983. Additionally, Union had certified certain wells as stripper wells under the June 1979 Department of Energy Reg. § 212.131. These stripper classifications were maintained by ECL when it became the operator of these leases.
ECL timely filed a claim for over withheld windfall profit tax for the year 1983 in the amount of $545,000.00. The refund was based on the application of the net income limitation to the windfall profit tax liability for crude oil produced from the Vinton Dome Field property. The District Director disallowed $146,437.83 of this amount based upon unsettled issues concerning the independent producer tax rates. ECL then filed this action on April 18, 1986, to recover the disallowed amount, maintaining:
(1) That it is entitled to use the independent producer tax rates for calculating the windfall profit tax refund on tier 1 production attributable to its working interest in the Vinton Dome Field property; and
(2) That it is entitled to the independent producer stripper well exemption from the tax for certain tier 2 production attributable to its working interest in the Vinton Dome Field property.
The tax benefits claimed by ECL as an independent producer apply only to “independent producer oil.” 26 U.S.C. § 4987(b)(2). This term is defined in § 4992(a) as “that portion of an independent producer’s qualified production for the quarter which does not exceed such person’s independent producer amount for such quarter,” and qualified production is the “number of barrels of taxable crude oil—
(A) of which such person is the producer,
(B) which is removed during such quarter,
(C) which is tier 1 oil or tier 2 oil, and
(D) which is attributable to the independent producers working interest in a property.”
26 U.S.C. § 4992(d)(1). Here, ECL’s entitlement to the two exemptions allowed independent producers turns on whether the mineral interest held by it is a “working interest” for purposes of the windfall profit tax.
The Windfall Profit Tax Act (“WPTA”) defines “working interest” as an “operating mineral interest (within the meaning of Section 614(d)),” 26 U.S.C. § 4992(d)(2); that is, the interest in the minerals in place that is burdened with the cost of production.4 Moreover, the questioned working interest must have been “in existence as such an interest on January 1, 1980,” to be entitled to the reduced independent producer rates. 26 U.S.C. § 4992(d)(2)(A)(i). In the present matter, the interest owned by ECL was not in existence as an operating interest on January 1, 1980; therefore, is [261]*261not a working interest for purposes of the windfall profit tax, and production from this interest is not “independent producer oil”.
The mineral interests owned by ECL in the Vinton Dome Field property did not bear the costs of development and operation on January 1, 1980. On this date, 100% of the working interest in the subject property was owned by Union. In fact, ECL’s operating interest in the Vinton Dome Field property was created out of a reversionary interest which did not arise until December, 1982.5
An independent producer may only avail itself of the reduced windfall profit tax rates and of the independent producer stripper well exemption from the tax for its “independent producer oil.” In the case at bar, ECL’s production from its interest in the Vinton Dome Field property was not attributable to a working interest in existence as such an interest on January 1, 1980. This production was not independent producer oil, and, therefore, ECL is not entitled to these claimed exemptions. ECL is not entitled to the refund it is seeking.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
672 F. Supp. 258, 96 Oil & Gas Rep. 439, 60 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6191, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exploration-co-v-united-states-lawd-1987.