Mining Taxation

MANY complaints have been filed by mine prospectors, explorers and producers about inequities in mining taxation. They have insisted upon improvement, and in the past 35 years there has been some progress. Many of the best taxation provisions made to date are those contained in the Revenue Act of 1951. Mining economics presents special problems, a fact even recognized by many textbooks. Certain provisions have been made to take care of mining taxation rights, but these have been made by Congressional act and do not represent basic, constitutional, guarantees. Despite special provision, in the form of depletion allowances, there remain injustices. The industry faces the problem of gaining adequate income tax allowances for exploration and development expenditures, operating losses, and bonus and subsidy payments. Problems in mine taxation arose soon after the adoption of the 16th Amendment. This amendment gave Congress the power to impose income taxes. Supreme Court decisions against a number of mining companies held that Congress, under its power to tax income, could tax net operating revenue before depletion allowance was deducted. The court also ruled that the right to deduct depletion is a matter of Congressional permission. There is no statute provision permitting mining stockholders to recover their investment out of dividends while the mine is being operated. The Supreme Court did not recognize that part of mining proceeds are actually amortization of the cost of mineral rights. Both these omissions stem from failure to recognize that by its very nature mining consumes its mineral rights and therefore that a part of gross proceeds are not income but recovery of capital. Suppose a Congress unfriendly to mining interests repeals the provisions that allow deductions for depletion. Under such a situation assume that a corporation buys a mineral deposit for $300,000. They mine the deposit and earn an operating profit of $500,000. At the current rates they would pay a Federal Income tax of in excess of $250,000. This venture results in a loss of $50,000 as shown in the table below. For the example given the absence of depletion provisions in income tax law would turn ore into waste rock, because the word "ore" connotes commercially mineable rock. [ ] In retrospect the conclusion is clear: If the Supreme Court had recognized that a part of mining proceeds represent in reality sales proceeds of mineral rights, then profits derived from such sales would have been taxed at the favorable long-term capital rates, instead of being taxed at the high normal, surtax and excess profits rates. It is a question whether percentage depletion allowances offset this tax situation. History The history of depletion allowances has been one of general improvement. The original act did not include depletion, but an allowance at the rate of 5 pct of gross proceeds was provided in 1913. The Acts of 1916 and 1917 allowed depletion upon cost of property, and in 1918 the law was further changed to permit depletion upon cost, or market value as of date of discovery. In 1932 metal, coal and sulphur properties were permitted to elect depletion in percentages of gross income, limited to 50 pct of net income, in lieu of cost depletion. Shortly thereafter the rule was changed and percentage depletion is now allowable in any case where it is higher than cost depletion. Since 1942 percentage depletion allowances have been extended to cover many nonmetals, and in 1951 the rate for coal mines was increased from 5 to 10 pct of gross income. It is interesting to note that these allowances have been retained, and even