Exxon Corporation - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
          was paid by only five oil and gas companies which owned the                 
          largest and most profitable fields in the North Sea.                        
               Because of the special allowances, small oil and gas                   
          companies with interests in marginal fields typically owe no PRT            
          with regard to fields licensed to them.                                     
               Pre-existing licensees (i.e., companies such as Exxon to               
          whom North Sea licenses were issued prior to enactment of PRT in            
          1975) were obligated to pay PRT upon its enactment in 1975 and in           
          subsequent years even though they were in full compliance with              
          terms of their pre-1975 North Sea licenses.  All PRT paid by                
          Exxon during the years in issue and the character of which is in            
          dispute in these cases was paid by Exxon with respect to fields             
          licensed to Exxon before 1975 and before PRT was enacted.                   
               As a result of paying PRT, Exxon neither received any                  
          special benefits under the North Sea licenses that it had been              
          issued before 1975, nor received any special benefits from the              
          United Kingdom in obtaining new North Sea licenses after 1975.              
               By 1979, with the rise of oil prices relating to the Iranian           
          Revolution, there was a general perception that the PRT rate was            
          too low and that the United Kingdom ought to be collecting more             
          PRT from oil companies operating in the North Sea.  In 1982,                
          however, with a drop in world oil prices, there was a general               
          perception that the PRT rate was too high and that PRT and                  








Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011