- 10 -
It is equally clear the gross income used is the amount
actually or constructively received by the taxpayer. Helvering
v. Mountain Producers Corp., supra. Thus, petitioners cannot
claim depletion on another interest holder's gross income from
the property, whether or not such taxpayer is entitled to a
depletion allowance. The fact that Shell may be a major
integrated oil producer precluded from using percentage
depletion, see Exxon Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 721 (1994),
is beside the point, particularly since Shell is still entitled
to a depletion allowance based on the cost method. Secs. 611 and
612.
In a similar vein, petitioners' arguments based upon the use
of "market price" and its relationship to "controlled price" are
also irrelevant, particularly in light of petitioners' efforts to
reconstruct the price movements going back to 1980. Insofar as a
"controlled price" is concerned, that phrase has no bearing in
the years before us since Federal oil price controls were lifted
in 1981. See CanadianOxy Offshore Prod. Co. v. Commissioner, 100
T.C. 382, 384, 387 (1993). With respect to "market price", we
see no basis for applying such a standard herein. That standard,
referred to as "representative market or field price",
section 1.613-3(a), Income Tax Regs., applies to taxpayers,
generally integrated producers, who do not sell their oil or gas
in the immediate vicinity of the well and who thus must calculate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011