Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

E ORNEY GENERAL June 27, 1961 Honrqble P.~ Frank Lake Opinion No. ~~-1080 Seqretary of State Austin, Texas Rer Whether bonuser reoeloed by a oorporatlon aa aoneideration for the execution of mineral lease8 oonatitute surplus for purposele of calcu- lating the franahise tax levied by Chapter 12 of Title 122A, Dear HP. Lake: Vernon’s Civil Btatuteu. Your office hae requested an opinion 88 to whether boausea received by a corporation a8 conridera- tion for the execution of mineral leases constitute surplus for purposes of aalculat$ng the franchise tax levied by Chapter 12 of Title 122A, Vernon18 Civil Statutes. You have informed ue that theee bonuses constitute more than 90 per oent of the receipt6 of the corporation in question, and that the corporation oon- tenda that they should be treated as a deferred credit pending a final determlnatlon of the nature of these receipts. More particularly, the corporation contende as follows: The mlneral interests ouned by the corpora- tion and constituting the subject of the leasee in question are thue far nonproducing and thus unproven* If these Interests prove produative, the bonuses already received will be treated a6 an advance royalty, con- stituting income. If not, upon reversion of the leases : to the corporation the bonuses (after Federal income ’ taxes) should be treated aa reimbursement to the corpora- tion for damage to its non condemned mineral ititerest8, to be credited against the cost of those interests, thus reducing the amount of such cost required to be written off by the corporation. Consequently, the corporation aques, the bonuses should properly be oarried as a deferred credit until the contingencies just set forth have been resolvedJ so carried they would not constitute income and thus could not constitute surplus. Honorable PINFrank Lake, page 2 (~~-1080 There are undoubtedly good reasons why the accounting treatment of these bonuses by the corpora- tion should be as the corporation contends, an objective of accounting being to provide an accurate matching of aost and income. The objective of applying the franchise tax statutes, however, is to effeotuate the intent of the Legislature, which was to levy a tax for the’prlvi- leae of dolna business In Texas “commensurate with’the value of the ,privilege granted . . . ” United-North -I- ~~~- & S6uth Development Co,v. Heath, 78 S:W.Zd 650 (C3.v; App. Austin, 19341,err. ref. This application therefore Is- bound neither by, the technical usages of the terms of the statute (including the term “surplUsn:) ~mdlaarlly employed In accounting, nor by the treatmentafforded an item by the taxpayer oorporatlon eon Its books. United North & South~ DeveloDment Co, Y. Heath, su Pa; lieOOlorado:inlwz.28!t--,- -- ._ -~ was-intended, .foP examplea that the jtate “look to the property owned .by the corporation and available to it,. ?or use during the ‘.:,‘,~. enrming year 2’; carrying on its businees .,.,’ regardless of how the items in question should have been or were In fact recorded by the company for its own purpoaem, etioe auah property is an important determin- ant of the value to the company of .itsprivllege of doing business in Texas. In the present case the amount of the bonuses in question has been Peaeived by the. eerporatlon, and from, the time of ~!cticeJpt has been avallable to Che corporation for, Its exoLua.iae use and w3ntrol. Accord- ingly It is our opinion that such bonuses sonstitute surplus, as that term Is used in Chapter 12 of Title 122A, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. The fact just noted we feel is sufficient to distinguish this case from that of unrealized profit6 from installment sales, which we have held not includable within surplus or undivided profita for franchise tax purposes. Attorney General’s Opinion of April 30, 1934, Book 3 p. 952; Attorney General’s Opinion No. V-774 (1949 Ronorable P. Frank Lake, page 3 (WW-1080) Bonuses received by a COP- poration as consideration for the execution of mineral leases constitute surplus for the purposes of caloula- tin@; the franchise tax levied by Chapter 12 of Title 122A, Vernon's Civil Statutes. Very truly yours, ..~ WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas 8&Y Assistant LH:lgh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: W. V* Geppert, Chairman Marvin Brown, Jr. B. H. Titnmins, Jr. Houghton Brownlee REVIEWED FORATTORNRYGENERAL BYr Morgan Nesbltt .