Clear Fork Coal Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner opened its Mine No. 4 in 1944, and its projected plans were to extract coal by the "room and pillar" method of mining.
Read the full summary
Petitioner opened its Mine No. 4 in 1944, and its projected plans were to extract coal by the "room and pillar" method of mining. Sometime in 1945, it had started driving a cross-entryway, from which it was turning rooms and mining coal, but its early experience demonstrated that, due to ceiling conditions, rooms could not be turned and mined as the driving of the entryway progressed, but that the entryway would have to be driven to a determined point and the rooms then turned and mined as the operation retreated to the mouth of the entryway, and upon the completion of such room mining, the…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Turner, Judge:
Simply stated, the question is whether during the years 1947 and 1948 petitioner’s Mine No. 4 was in a “development stage,” or in “a producing status,” within the meaning of section 29.23 (m)-15 of Kegulations 111.1 By that regulation, it is provided that “All expenditures in excess of net receipts from minerals sold shall be charged to capital account recoverable through depletion while the mine is in the development stage,” and further, that “The mine will be considered to have passed from a development to a producing status when the major portion of the mineral…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blockton Cahaba Coal Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1928
- Alsted Coal Co. v. YokeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1952
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kennecott Copper Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Clear Fork Coal Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1954