Close
Close

Mitsubishi Cement holding affirmed on appeal

RFP
Tax Hot Topics newsletter The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s decision in Mitsubishi Cement Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, No. 19-71401 (Nov. 13, 2020), that mining costs do not include purchased minerals added to the cement-making process for purposes of computing percentage depletion under Section 613.

The taxpayer in the case mines calcium carbonate and adds in purchased minerals to produce cement for sale. In computing its percentage depletion, it used the proportionate profits method and calculated its gross income from mining by including the costs of minerals purchased from third parties.

A taxpayer who conducts both mining and non-mining activities with respect to a given mineral (as in the manufacture of finished products like cement) must allocate gross income from the two activities. The percentage depletion rate is applied only to the gross income from mining. The taxpayer argued that the purchased minerals should be included because they qualified as a treatment process applied to the calcium carbonate that the company mined to make cement.

The courts rejected the taxpayer’s arguments and held that the cost of purchased minerals was a non-mining cost because the taxpayer has no depletable interest in the purchased minerals. Although the statute provides that a treatment process is part of mining costs for percentage depletion, the courts held that the purchased minerals were not part of a treatment process to mine the calcium carbonate, but instead were additives used to make cement. The Tax Court also noted that depletion allowances must be calculated separately for individual mineral properties combined in a mixture and that the regulations specifically provide that mining does not include purchasing minerals from another or the application of processes to purchased minerals.

In addition, the courts rejected the taxpayer’s reliance on a regulation published in 1960 allowing a 15% depletion rate that was superseded by a statutory change in 1969, which required a 14% rate. The Ninth Circuit also upheld the Tax Court’s decision that the taxpayer could not increase its percentage depletion deduction by increasing its gross sales from mining as a result of substituting average prices per ton that unrelated parties paid for the prices that were used in actual sales to its controlled subsidiaries, stating that the taxpayer failed to prove that the unrelated party sales were “representative”of the market. The Tax Court had additionally held that the regulations do not allow the taxpayer to increase gross sales by relying on representative market prices because it sold its products to members of the controlled group at substantial discounts.

Contacts:
Sharon Kay
Partner
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 861 4140

Caleb Cordonnier
Manager
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1555

Pinky Shodhan
Senior Associate
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1556

Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.