U.S. Tax Court: Pre-TCJA section 199 deduction claimed for processed seismic data
U.S. Tax Court: Section 199 deduction claimed
The U.S. Tax Court today released an opinion holding that the taxpayer’s gross receipts from the leasing of processed marine seismic data during 2008 were not eligible for the then-available deduction under section 199(c)(5).
The case is: TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. No. 3 (August 26, 2020). Read the Tax Court’s opinion [PDF 150 KB]
Summary
The taxpayer was engaged in the business of acquiring, processing, and licensing marine seismic data, and during 2008 earned revenue by licensing the processed seismic data to companies in the oil and gas industry.
The taxpayer claimed on its Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for 2008, a domestic production activities deduction (DPAD) under section 199 of approximately $1.95 million on the basis of domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) of $74 million. [Section 199 was repealed for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, by the 2017 tax law (Pub. L. No. 115-97) or the law that is often referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (TCJA).]
The IRS disallowed the taxpayer’s claimed deduction under section 199 for the 2008 tax year based on a determination that the gross receipts from the leasing of processed marine seismic data were not considered to be eligible DPGR.
The Tax Court today issued an opinion agreeing with the IRS that the taxpayer’s processed marine seismic data was not qualifying production property within the meaning of section 199(c)(5) because it was neither tangible personal property nor a sound recording.
The Tax Court further held that:
- The taxpayer’s processing of marine seismic data constituted engineering services performed in the United States with respect to the construction of real property under section 199(c)(4), but that the gross receipts from such services were DPGR only to the extent that such construction activities are within the United States.
- To the extent that the taxpayer received gross receipts from its parent company for processing services of its parent’s data for the parent’s clients, that revenue did not constitute DPGR.
© 2022 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
For more detail about the structure of the KPMG global organization please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.