DocketNumber: Docket No. 8011.
Citation Numbers: 1928 BTA LEXIS 3148, 13 B.T.A. 937
Judges: Marqtjette
Filed Date: 10/11/1928
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The question in this proceeding is whether income received by the petitioner in 1921, after settlement of litigation which involved the source of such income and held it in abeyance, shall be taxed as of that year or whether it should be treated as accruals for the years 1915, 1916, and 1917 — when the income was really produced.
The petitioner kept its books on the accrual method but the income in question was not taken up on its books as an accrual. Such omission, however, would not have the effect of placing the petitioner upon a nonaccrual basis. Bartles-Scott Oil Co., 2 B. T. A. 16; John F. Cook, 4 B. T. A. 916.
Whether petitioner’s income received in 1921 can be properly accredited to prior years, depends upon when the liability for payment of such income accrued. Such liability became fixed, accrued, by the terms of petitioner’s contract with Trojan Oil Co., at the time the petitioner completed its work, and that was in June, 1915. In Bartles-Scott Oil Co., supra, it was held that inspection fees, which by statute were made payable at the time of inspection, accrued as liabilities at the times of inspection, although payment was withheld pending the outcome of litigation to test the validity of the inspection law. The same reasoning applies in the instant case.
By the terms of its contract the petitioner became entitled to receive a determinable sum of money when a certain oil well was completed. The fact that payment of three-fourths of that sum was contingent upon continued profitable production to the obligor under the contract makes no difference. As soon as the petitioner completed its work it had a valid claim for compensation, maintainable in the courts and enforceable for what it might be worth. Under its contract petitioner could, and should, have entered on its books accruals of such compensation when and as the oil well produced. We think
Reviewed by the Board.
Judgment will he entered wader Rule 50.