Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jones, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Smith, 193 F.2d 381, 10th Cir. (1952)
Jones, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Smith, 193 F.2d 381, 10th Cir. (1952)
2d 381
52-1 USTC P 9119
The appeal in this case presents for determination the validity of an assessment
of additional income tax imposed upon N. T. Smith, hereinafter referred to as
the taxpayer, for the year 1944. Smith Brothers, a co-partnership consisting of
the taxpayer and W. P. Smith, was engaged in the business of drilling wells for
oil and gas. In October, 1944, the-partnership entered into a contract with C. L.
Carlock to drill for him a well to the depth of 4,500 feet for $22,500. Drilling
was begun on or about November 1; on November 18, the well had been drilled
to a depth of 2,614 feet; and on that date a cave-in occurred which froze the
pipe. After extended efforts to free the pipe failed, the hole was abandoned; the
drilling rig was skidded to a new location about 100 feet from the original
location; and on December 1, the drilling of a new hole was begun. The drilling
of the new hole to a depth of 4,500 feet under the terms of the original contract
was completed on January 23, 1945; and additional drilling under amendments
or supplements to the original contract was completed in February, 1945. The
cost of drilling the hole which was abandoned amounted to $14,332.55.
In its books and records, the partnership maintained a separate account for each
contract to drill a well. All direct costs incurred in the performance of that
contract were debited to such account. At the end of the taxable year these
tangible costs were deferred on uncompleted contracts and were not carried into
the profit and loss account as earnings of the business until the contract to
which they related was completed. General overhead expenses were deducted
in the taxable year in which they were incurred. The partnership established and
maintained that accounting practice preceding and following the execution and
fulfillment of the contract with Carlock. And the partnership regularly filed
information tax returns in which direct costs allocable to each contract were
treated in that manner. The costs incurred in the drilling of the hole which was
abandoned were carried into the partnership books as a loss and deducted in
determining the distributable net income of the partnership for the year 1944.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that any loss sustained in
the drilling of such hole was not deductible in arriving at the distributable net
income of the partnership for the year 1944; and that instead, it was deductible
for the year 1945, the year in which the work under the contract was
completed. The impact of that determination resulted in a deficiency in tax
being imposed upon the taxpayer for the year 1944. The deficiency with
interest thereon was paid. A claim for refund was submitted and denied. The
taxpayer filed this suit against the collector to recover the amount paid.
Judgement was entered for the taxpayer, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 686; and the
collector appealed.
supplements called for drilling below that depth, but the original contract was
not completed or fulfilled until 1945. The loss of the first hole occasioned by
the cave-in during 1944 did not terminate the contract or free the partnership of
its obligation under it. The cave-in did not complete the transaction. It did not
enlarge, diminish, or otherwise change the obligation resting upon the
partnership to drill a hole to the depth of 4,500 feet. And the beginning of the
new hole did not give rise to a new contract or a new obligation on the part of
the partnership. The contract remained the same. It was a single contract. It was
the unit of operation. And the second hole was begun and drilled to the depth of
4,500 feet pursuant to its provisions. The expenditures made for the drilling of
the first hole were merely part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the
obligation resting upon the partnership under the terms of the contract. And
under the accounting practice of keeping the books and records of the
partnership, such expenditures were to be taken into consideration in
determining the profit or loss on the completion of the contract in 1945.
Treating them as deductible in 1944 rather than in 1945 constituted a departure
from the accounting practice of the partnership on which its information returns
were prepared and submitted. And the partnership was not free to make that
change in its accounting practice and reflect such change in its information
returns without the consent of the Commissioner St. Paul Union Depot Co. v.
Commissioner, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 235.
5
Under Section 23 of the Internal Revenue Code, supra, and Section 29.23(3)-1
of the Regulation, supra, a loss sustained during a taxable year arising from
fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, may be deducted from gross income
unless at the time of the filing of the return such loss has been claimed as a
deduction for estate tax purposes. The taxpayer seeks to uphold the judgment in
his favor on the ground that the cave-in of the hole was a casualty within the
intent and meaning of the statute and the regulation. In the course of his
argument, the taxpayer states among other things that more drilling rigs are lost
by fire than are holes lost under circumstances similar to those presented here.
The statute and the regulation provide in blueprinted language that a loss
sustained by fire may be deducted, unless a deduction for estate tax purposes
has been claimed; but a deduction for loss occasioned by the cave-in of a well
being drilled for oil and gas is not expressly authorized. And while the loss of
holes being drilled for oil and gas from cave-ins may be infrequent, a loss of
that kind is not of such extraordinary occurrence that it may appropriately be
catalogued as a casualty within the intent and meaning of the statute and the
regulation. Instead, such a loss is an incident which may arise in the drilling of
deep wells of that kind. And a loss sustained in that manner is not deductible
under the statute and the regulation during the year in which it occurs if the
books and records of the taxpayer are consistently kept and its information tax
returns consistently filed on substantially the completed contract basis and the
contract for the drilling of the particular well is not completed until the next
year.
6