Samson Investment Company and Subsidiaries - Page 43

                                       - 43 -                                         

          therefore decide whether petitioner did all that was in its power           
          to place the rigs at issue into service.                                    
               All of the CDC and Eason rigs were subject to the Suits                
          agreement.  Both John Rogers and Jerry Suits testified that                 
          during the taxable years at issue, both CDC and Eason owned                 
          fleets of drilling rigs that they held as part of their drilling            
          business.                                                                   
               Respondent points to a Texas sales and use tax audit of 12             
          of the rigs in question, in which Samson argued that the rigs               
          were not subject to Texas use tax because it purchased them for             
          resale.  This, however, was merely one of several alternative               
          arguments asserted by petitioner in the use tax audit.  In audit            
          questionnaires in the Texas use tax proceeding, CDC described its           
          business operations as “oil and gas drilling” in 1988 and “oil              
          and gas operations” in 1991.  Additionally, petitioner and the              
          State of Texas have agreed to defer to this Court for resolution            
          of this issue.  If we determine that CDC is allowed depreciation            
          deductions, then it will be liable for Texas use tax.                       
               In Sears Oil Co. v. Commissioner, 359 F.2d 191 (2d Cir.                
          1966), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo.                
          1965-39, the taxpayer purchased a canal barge that it was unable            
          to use until the following year because the canal froze.  The               
          court found that the taxpayer was entitled to depreciation in the           
          year of purchase because (1) the barge was gradually                        
          deteriorating as it was “subject to the weather elements”, (2)              



Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011