Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Paragon Jewel Coal Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

An economic interest is possessed in every case in which the taxpayer has acquired by investment any interest in mineral in place or standing timber and secures, by any form of legal relationship, income derived from the extraction of the mineral or severance of the timber, to which he must look for a return of his capital. But a person who has no capital investment in the mineral deposit or standing timber does not possess an economic interest merely because through a contractual relation he possess (es) a mere economic or pecuniary advantage derived from production.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Paragon Jewel Coal Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

The contractors paid nothing for the privilege of mining the coal; they acquired no title to the coal either in place or after it was mined; they paid none of the royalty or land taxes required by Paragon's leases; they claim no sublease, no co-adventure, no partnership. Their sole claim to any interest in the coal in place is based on their investment in equipment, connecting roadways, buildings and the costs of opening the mine, and, in some instances, on their installation of track inside the mine to remove the coal.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Paragon Jewel Coal Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

While Paragon is certainly an owner of an economic interest in the coal, it is also a principal in the mining of coal and thus comes within the exemption and is expressly allowed depletion. The contract miners do not claim, nor will the record support a contention, that they are a 'co-adventurer, partner, or principal.' In contrast to the language of § 631 (c) , it is noted that in treating with timber in § 631 (b) an 'owner' is allowed capital gains instead of depletion.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature