HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
v.
O'DONNELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
O'Donnell sold his stock in an oil company to another company in exchange for a contractual right to receive one-third of the net profits from the company's oil and gas operations, and claimed a tax deduction for depletion on those profit payments. The Supreme Court held that O'Donnell had no depletable interest in the oil and gas because he owned only a personal covenant to receive profits, not a capital interest in the mineral properties themselves, and therefore could not claim depletion deductions available only to those with a direct ownership interest in oil and gas in place.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, Thomas A. O’Donnell, owned one-third of the capital stock of the San Gabriel Petroleum Company. By contract of January 9, 1918, he sold this stock to the Petroleum Midway Company, Ltd. As consideration, the Midway Company agreed to pay to respondent one-third of the net profits from the development and operation of the oil and gas properties then owned by the San Gabriel Company and which the Midway Company agreed to acquire. That acquisition was made, the properties thus acquired were developed and operated, and one-third of the net profits thus derived were paid to respondent to August 4, 1926.
With respect to such payments in the years 1925 and 1926, respondent claimed deduction for depletion, which the Board of Tax Appeals allowed, overruling the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 32 B.
T. A.
1277. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Board. 90 F. (2d) 907. We granted certiorari. See Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., ante, p. 362.
The question is whether respondent had an interest, that is, a capital investment, in the oil and gas in place. Revenue Act of 1926, § 204 (c) (2); § 214 (a) (9). Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551, 557; Helvering v. Twin Bell Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312, 321; Thomas v. Perkins, 301 U. S. 655, 661; Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., supra. As a mere owner of shares in the San Gabriel Company, respondent had no such interest. Treasury Regulations No. 69, Art.
201. The ownership of the oil and gas properties was in the corporation. When the Midway Company acquired these properties from the San Gabriel Company and operated them, the Midway Company became the owner of the oil and gas produced. It was the owner of the gross proceeds or income upon which the statutory allowance for depletion was to be computed. Helvering v. Twin Bell Syndicate, supra. The agreement to pay respondent one-third of the net profits derived from the development and operation of the properties was a personal covenant and did not purport to grant respondent an interest in the properties themselves. If there were no net profits, nothing would be payable to him. No trust was declared by which respondent could claim an equitable interest in the res. As consideration for the sale of his stock in the San Gabriel Company respondent bargained for and obtained an economic advantage from the Midway Company’s operations but that advantage or profit did not constitute a depletable interest in the oil and gas in place. Palmer v. Bender, supra; Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., supra.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Cardozo and Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1940)…is taxable and to whom a deduction for depletion is allowable. That issue is, who has a capital investment in the oil and gas in place and what is the extent of his interest. Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., 303 U. S. 362, 367; Helvering v. O’Donnell, 303 U. S. 370; Helvering v. Elbe Oil Co., 303 U. S. 372; Thomas v. Perkins, 301 U. S. 655, 661, 663; Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312, 321; Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551. Compare Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U. S. 331. . Oil and gas reserves l…1 / 2
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sw. Exploration Co., 350 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1956)…xtraction, Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., 303 U. S. 362, and in the case of a former stockholder who had traded his shares in a corporation which owned oil leases for a share of net income from production of the leased wells, Helvering v. O’Donnell, 303 U. S. 370. The second factor has been interpreted to mean that the taxpayer must look solely to the extraction of oil or gas for a return of his capital, and depletion has been denied where the payments were not dependent on production, Helvering v. Elbe Oil…
-
Burton-Sutton Oil Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 328 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1946)…ased on production from the wells without regard to cost or value of the property. A participation in net profits disassociated from an economic interest does not enable a recipient of such profits to benefit from depletion. Helvering v. O’Donnell, 303 U. S. 370. See the discussion of Felix Oil Co. in note 7, supra.…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1933)
- Thomas v. Perkins, 301 U.S. 655 (U.S. 1937)
- Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1934)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. O'Donnell, 90 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1937)