From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sneed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 17, 1941
121 F.2d 725 (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1941)

Opinion

No. 9560.

July 17, 1941.

Petition for Review of Decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals (District of Texas).

On motion for rehearing.

Motion denied.

For former opinion, see 119 F.2d 767.

Harry C. Weeks, of Fort Worth, Tex., and H.C. Pipkin, of Amarillo, Tex., for petitioners.

Joseph M. Jones and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J.P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Irving M. Tullar, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., for respondent

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.


The motion for rehearing goes largely upon a misapprehension of our opinion. The restoration to income in 1936 is not made because it then became certain "that the areas in question would never produce gas." It was because it then became certain that there would be no production under the leases for which the bonuses had been received. The whole question turns about the bonuses and whether they really represent any depletion, and not about a possible productivity of the lands.

The actual depletion of gas under these lands through wells drilled under other leases is compensated by the depletion allowances made at those wells. There would be a double allowance if it were also allowed here.

The bonuses in question are, it is argued, "income from the property" under the statute whether in 1926 or 1936. But in 1936 they did not, as was assumed in 1926, represent any depletion. The statute, Sec. 204(c)(2), 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Acts, page 154, in fixing the percentage depletion begins: "In the case of oil and gas wells the allowance for depletion shall be 27½ per centum," etc. If throughout the term of the lease there be no producing oil or gas well, and a fortiori if there be no well at all on the property, this provision does not apply. Equally under the general provision for "a reasonable allowance for depletion", Sec. 214(9), 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Acts, page 167, it is unreasonable to permit an allowance for depletion when no well is ever opened.

The motion for rehearing is denied.


Summaries of

Sneed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 17, 1941
121 F.2d 725 (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1941)
Case details for

Sneed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:SNEED et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 17, 1941

Citations

121 F.2d 725 (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1941)

Citing Cases

Sneed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

May 5, 1941. Rehearing Denied July 17, 1941. See 121 F.2d 725. Petition for Review of Decision of the United…

Lloyd Corporation v. Riddell

This case was also relied upon by the G.C.M.'s. Sneed v. Commissioner, 119 F.2d 767, (5th Cir.), rehearing…