The IRS recently released a private letter ruling (PLR 202129001
) concluding that certain environmental mitigation payments made by a taxpayer were deductible under Section 162 in the year of payment.
The taxpayer that requested the advice owned two facilities located at an energy generation station. The taxpayer obtained the right to construct a third facility; however, the state later mandated that the taxpayer transfer such right to another party. Thereafter, the taxpayer entered into a joint development agreement (JDA), among other contractual agreements, with two other parties and transferred its right to develop, finance, construct and own the facility to Party A. Although the JDA provides that Party A must satisfy the environmental conditions associated with the transfer, Party A and taxpayer entered into an implementing agreement (IA) which obligated the taxpayer to share in the costs of mitigation. As part of the required mitigation activities, Party A purchased certain water rights needed to mitigate ground water drawdown. The IA required the taxpayer to compensate Party A for taxpayer’s share of such water rights. The taxpayer sought advice on the deductibility of this payment.
Section 162(a) provides that a deduction is allowed for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in the carrying on of a trade or business. However, pursuant to Section 161, capital treatment under Section 263 takes precedence over expenses otherwise currently deductible under Section 162. Therefore, the taxpayer’s water right payment is subject to an analysis as to whether the expense is capitalizable to either tangible or intangible assets prior to determining current deductibility under Section 162.
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.263(a)-3(d) provides that taxpayers are required to capitalize amounts paid to improve tangible property. Property is improved when there is a betterment of the property, a restoration of the property, or an adaption of the property to a new or different use. The IRS concluded that the payments in question were merely for mitigating environmental damage caused by the operation of the facility and not for the improvement of any tangible property. Thus, the payment was not required to be capitalized as a tangible asset.
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.263(a)-4 provides rules for applying Section 263(a) to amounts paid to acquire or create intangibles. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.263(a)-4(b)(1) provides that a taxpayer must generally capitalize an amount paid in the following instances:
- Acquisition of an intangible: The taxpayer did not acquire any asset from Party A.
- Creation of an intangible (including certain contract rights): Although the JDA created certain contract rights, the taxpayer’s payment under the IA was not paid to create or modify the existing contracts. Rather, the payment was made pursuant to the terms of the contracts in order to carry out taxpayer’s responsibilities.
- Creation of a separate and distinct intangible asset (property of measurable value, protected under applicable law and capable of being sold separate from the related business): The right to use the water for environmental mitigation had no value outside operation of the business as the water right could only be used at the facility. Accordingly, this right had no value outside of the business and was incapable of being sold separate from the business.
- Creation of a future benefit identified in published guidance: No future benefit was created.
- Facilitation of the acquisition or creation of an intangible: The taxpayer’s payment under the IA was not a cost of creating (or pursuing the creation of) the contacts. Further, the taxpayer’s liability arose after the creation of the IA.
Based on the foregoing, the IRS determined that the taxpayer’s payment was not required to be capitalized as an intangible asset.
The IRS concluded that the taxpayer’s payment was an ordinary and necessary business expense under Section 162 as the payment was made in carrying on the taxpayer’s business with an expectation of reducing future operating costs. Furthermore, the IRS determined that the payment was deductible in the year paid. Section 461 requires accrual method taxpayers to deduct liability amounts in the taxable year when the fact of the liability is established, the amount of the liability determined with reasonable accuracy and economic performance occurs. The IRS stated that the taxpayer met the requirements of Section 461 in the year that the environmental mitigation payments were made to Party A. Accordingly, the taxpayer was entitled to a deduction in the year of payment.
Metropark, N.J. Office
+1 732 516 5539
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.