1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*41
1. Corporation A was the wholly owned subsidiary of corporation B. B owned a half interest in a mining claim upon which a mine was located, also a half interest in two adjoining claims. In previous years a lessee from B and the other owners had operated the mine, piling waste and low grade ore in a dump, largely on the two adjoining claims, though in minor part on the claim where the mine was located. B secured indirectly and by assignment the lease under which the mine had been operated and the dump accumulated. It then leased the dump to A on a royalty basis.
2. B thereafter operated the dump itself.
3. B also, at the same time the dump was being operated by A, and later by B, operated1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*42 the underground mine, a part of the time under the assigned lease and a part of the time under the Colorado Co-Owner Statute. The underground operations were at a loss.
7 T.C. 1103">*1104 OPINION.
The above named cases, duly consolidated, involve income and excess profits taxes, as follows:
Docket | Deficiency | Refund | |||
Petitioner | No. | Year | Tax | asserted | claimed |
Chicago Mines Co | 5469 | 6/1/40 to 5/31/41 | Income | $ 3,153.84 | |
6/1/40 to 10/8/40 | Excess profits | 1,816.52 | $ 2,147.29 | ||
London Extension | |||||
Mining Co | 5471 | Calendar year 1940 | Income | 1,914.86 | |
Calendar year 1941 | Income | 1,119.60 |
Docket No. 5470 involves transferee liability of the London Extension Mining Co. as transferee of Chicago Mines Co. The questions presented are whether the two petitioners are entitled to percentage depletion, and, if so, the amounts thereof.
All facts were stipulated. We adopt by reference the two stipulations filed, and find the facts therein set forth, but as there is some duplication, we set forth such facts as follows:
1. Chicago1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*44 Mines Co., petitioner in Docket No. 5469 and sometimes hereinafter referred to as Chicago Co., was a corporation organized in 1937 under the laws of the State of Colorado. Petitioner London Extension Mining Co. is a corporation organized in 1925 under the laws of the State of Colorado. Chicago Co. was a wholly owned subsidiary of the London Extension Mining Co., petitioner in Docket No. 5470 and Docket No. 5471 and sometimes hereinafter referred to as London Co.
2. Petitioner London Co. owns an undivided one-half interest in the American, Fraction, Huron, and Ibex lode mining claims in Park County, Colorado. The remaining one-half interest in the American claim is owned by a group of individuals sometimes called the Ellis heirs. The remaining undivided one-half interests in the Fraction, Huron, and Ibex claims are owned by the London Mines & Milling Co., a corporation having no interrelationship with petitioner. Petitioner London Co. acquired its undivided one-half interest in the American claim on October 11, 1929, and its undivided one-half interests in the Huron, Fraction, and Ibex claims in 1926 and 1927. These claims collectively are known as the American Mine.
7 T.C. 1103">*1105 1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*45 3. Amer Mining Co., a Colorado corporation, obtained a lease from the Ellis heirs, petitioner London Co., and the London Mines & Milling Co. to prospect and mine certain blocks of the American, Fraction, and Ibex claims and to extract ore therefrom. Said lease was successively assigned to W. A. Ellis, Inc., and thence to the petitioner London Co. on or about June 7, 1940. During the period 1930 to May 1940 the Amer Mining Co., in connection with its operation of the American Mine under said lease, shipped the high grade ore and placed the resulting waste material and low grade ore upon the surface of the ground, thus creating the American dump. The greater portion of this dump was placed upon the surface of the Fraction claim, smaller portions being on the surface of the American and Huron claims, all these claims being contiguous.
4. Petitioner Chicago Co. entered into a lease from London Co. on June 10, 1940, under which Chicago Co. immediately thereafter proceeded to mill that part of the American dump which could be sorted and milled at a profit, until October 8, 1940, when Chicago Co. was dissolved. The lease provided,
5. Chicago Co., in its income tax return filed for the year June 1, 1940, to May 31, 1941, deducted percentage depletion of $ 10,150.34, which sum represents 15 per cent of its gross1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*47 income, after deduction of royalties, from its operation and milling of the American dump. Said $ 10,150.34 did not exceed 50 per centum of the net income of Chicago Co. from the American dump.
6. The corporate life of Chicago Co. expired October 8, 1942, and all its assets previously were transferred to its parent company, the London Co., and the capital stock held by said parent company and the qualifying shares held by its directors were at that time canceled and surrendered.
7 T.C. 1103">*1106 7. Petitioner London Extension Mining Co. is liable as a transferee for any deficiency in income tax for the taxable year June 1, 1940, to May 31, 1941, and any deficiency in excess profits tax for the taxable period June 1 to October 8, 1940, that may be determined against petitioner Chicago Mines Co., transferor, together with interest thereon as provided by law. The only issue remaining in Docket Nos. 5469 and 5470 is the question of percentage depletion for the taxable periods herein involved and mentioned in this paragraph.
8. As a result of London Co.'s working of the American dump, it realized during 1940 the sum of $ 57,014.58 as its net smelter returns after deducting marketing and transportation1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*48 costs. It also received $ 16,917.23 as royalty from Chicago Mines Co. under its lease to Chicago Mines Co. on the said dump. It also received the sum of $ 22,638.45 as its net smelter returns on its underground mining operations of the American Mine. London Co. claimed depletion in its return; and it is agreed that if the Tax Court decides that London Co. is entitled to depletion on the operation of the American dump and that the operations of the dump and the American Mine constitute one mining property, then London Co. would be entitled to $ 14,485.54 disallowed depletion (i. e., American Mine $ 3,395.77, American dump $ 8,552.19, American dump royalties $ 2,537.58).
9. It is further agreed that the Commissioner did not err in disallowing the claim of Chicago Co. for relief under
10. It is further agreed that in Docket No. 5469 the only question involved is the right of Chicago Co. to the deduction of $ 10,150.34 depletion.
1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*49 We first consider the question whether Chicago Co. is entitled to the deduction of $ 10,150.34 for depletion from its working of the American dump from about June 10, 1940, the date of its lease from its parent, London Co., to October 8, 1940, when Chicago Co. was dissolved. Chicago Co.'s argument is, in brief, that even as nominal lessee from London Co. it is entitled to the deduction under
1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*51 After study of the facts, the interesting question involved, and authorities cited, we come to the conclusion that the Chicago Co.'s position is not well taken. We are able to discern no economic interest in Chicago Co. as lessee. Its parent, London Co., was the owner, and let a contract to it for the milling of ore in the dump. The dump was not a "mine," within the text of
This brings us to Chicago Co.'s contention of its oneness with London, its parent. Fully aware of the two recognized lines of cases on that subject, which need not be cited, we consider this one where corporate entity should not be disregarded. To sustain Chicago Co.'s contention in that respect would be to sustain clear inconsistency. London Co., parent, instead of working the dump itself, saw fit, apparently for its own reasons, to make a contract of lease with its subsidiary, thereby recognizing and utilizing the separateness of corporate entity. It was to receive only a royalty or share of the returns from operation, as contrasted with the entire returns appertaining to an owner (which London Co. was called in the lease). The distinction in corporate entities and1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*53 properties was emphasized by the lease provision referring to each as a Colorado corporation and providing that at the end of the lease Chicago Co. could remove any equipment and supplies belonging to it and might use buildings and equipment on the claim to house and board men necessary to the operation. Separateness of ownership and property rights was clearly intended. The net income from the operations was, by the lease, divided for income tax purposes between the two companies. It would be inconsistent to take the view that, for the purposes of deduction of depletion in computing that income, the companies are nevertheless one. Also, though Chicago Co. urges that it was a mere agency or
We next consider the position of London Co. First, is it entitled 7 T.C. 1103">*1109 to deduction of depletion on the $ 16,917.23 royalties under the lease to Chicago Co. and covering operations on American dump from about June 10 to October 8, 1940? The respondent contends that the ore dump was not a mine or mineral deposit, and that London Co. did not create it, did not mine or extract from the ground the ore in the dump, having acquired it by quitclaim deed and/or assignment, and not by virtue of its ownership of a one-half interest in the American mine. The petitioner's argument is in essence the same as with reference to Chicago Co. It contends that the ore came from London Co.'s own mine and mining claims, that "the dump ore had come to rest for a time near1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*55 the collar of the shaft, and its later extraction, sorting, tramming and milling were simply the final stages in the processing-stream which produced the income and hence formed the basis for percentage depletion." This is true, it is asserted, as to the royalties received, even where the lessee is independent of and at arm's length from the owner of the mine. Reliance is primarily placed on the
The tailings severed and removed from the mining claims, changed in character, placed on other and separate lands and having an ascertained and adjudicated value of their own, in our opinion, constituted a unit of property entirely apart from the mine from which they had been taken. See
The petitioner relies also upon
* * * The economic interest of this petitioner in the tailings and in the minerals to be extracted therefrom was identical with the interest it had maintained through its ownership of the mine from beginning to end of the extractive process; and when it finally received the proceeds of the minerals contained in the tailings it received income from the contents of the mine to exactly the same extent as the income it had previously received from the earlier and more rudimentary refining process. * * *.
Moreover, the pivotal question in the
The next question for our determination is whether London Co may deduct depletion on the income from its own milling, from October 8, 1940, to the end of the year, of the American dump. We think the answer again should be in the negative, for again London Co. is seen in this respect not to be operating a mine. It was operating a separate property, by virtue of acquisition thereof by transfer from the previous owner, and not by virtue of its ownership of a one-half interest in the mine. The facts negative an integrated operation of ore from the vein to the final process. The larger portion of the dump, it is stipulated, was upon the Fraction claim, only one of two 1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*62 smaller portions being on the American claim, on which the producing mine was located. The amount of the dump produced from the American 7 T.C. 1103">*1112 Mine is not agreed, nor even estimated, except as a small portion. Clearly we think such a situation differs greatly from that in the
The next problem presented is as to the treatment of depletion with respect to London Co.'s own underground workings of the American Mine from June 7 to August 20, 1940. There is no question as to depletion being deductible in1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41">*63 general on the mined ore, but the respondent's position is that the underground operations must be considered separately, and not as one operation with the dump. From the underground operations considered alone, there was a net loss. Therefore, it contended that no depletion may be deducted on such net loss, the profit from operation of the dump not being properly added to give a net profit upon which to compute percentage depletion. We think the respondent should be sustained, for the same reasons above set forth in denying deduction on operation of the dump. Though in the period now being considered London Co. was operating both in the mine and on the dump, the two may not be viewed as one. It is no mere delay at the collar of the mine, as petitioner argues, of the ore produced from it, so as to demonstrate a unified process, though interrupted by delay. The lessee, Amer Co., which had produced the waste dump, was no longer operating the mine, but had conveyed its property, the waste in the dump, indirectly to London Co. Only by such a conveyance did London Co. secure the right to work the dump. Royalties were payable to the owners of the dump.
1.
In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:
* * * *
(m) Depletion. -- In the case of mines, oil and gas wells, other natural deposits, and timber, a reasonable allowance for depletion and for depreciation of improvements, according to the peculiar conditions in each case; such reasonable allowance in all 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 shall be equitably apportioned between the lessor and lessee. * * *
* * * *
(b) Basis for Depletion. --
(1) General rule. -- The basis upon which depletion is to be allowed in respect of any property shall be the adjusted basis provided in section 113 (b) for the purpose of determining the gain upon the sale or other disposition of such property, except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection.
* * * *
(4) Percentage depletion for * * * metal mines * * *. --
(A) In General. -- The allowance for depletion under
(B) Definition of Gross Income From Property. -- As used in this paragraph the term "gross income from the property" means the gross income from mining. The term "mining," as used herein, shall be considered to include not merely the extraction of the ores or minerals from the ground but also the ordinary treatment processes normally applied by mine owners or operators in order to obtain the commercially marketable mineral product or products. The term "ordinary treatment processes," as used herein, shall include the following: * * * (iv) in the case of lead, zinc, copper, gold, silver, or fluorspar ores, potash, and ores which are not customarily sold in the form of the crude mineral product -- crushing, grinding, and beneficiation by concentration (gravity, flotation, amalgamation, electrostatic or magnetic), cyanidation, leaching, crystallization, precipitation (but not including as an ordinary treatment process electrolytic deposition, roasting, thermal or electric smelting, or refining), or by substantially equivalent processes or combination of processes used in the separation or extraction of the product or products from the ore, including the furnacing of quicksilver ores. * * *↩