August 30, 2010

Alternative Fuels in Kentucky: Coal’s Place in the Push for Energy Independence

When we think of alternative fuels we usually assume they will come from untraditional sources.  In Kentucky, this fact can give some pause considering the primary source of the inexpensive electricity we all consume is coal.  However, in April Gov. Beshear signed into law House Bill 552, which relates to alternative fuels.  Upon review of the Bill, it’s clear that Kentucky’s push to become a leader in the development of alternative fuels is not exclusive of the resources already in use.

After amendment of KRS 154.27-010, the definition of an energy-efficient alternative fuel is one that is “produced from processes designed to densify feedstock coal, waste coal, or biomass resources.”  The Bill also amends KRS 154.27-020 to state its purpose of pushing Kentucky to “the forefront of national efforts to achieve energy independence by reducing the Commonwealth’s reliance on imported energy sources.”  This push is coming through the establishment of incentives for companies that produce alternative fuels as defined above.  This process is not exclusionary of coal, but rather incorporates it into the attempt to make the Commonwealth a leader in the development of alternative energy sources. 

A company has to meet certain minimum capital investments to qualify:  a “facility that uses oil shale, tar sands, or coal as the primary feedstock” has a required minimum of $100 million, and an energy-efficient alternative fuel facility minimum is $25 million.  A snapshot of the incentives provided by the Incentives for Energy Independence Act relate to advances of funds to assist with construction of facilities, sales and use, severance and income tax incentives, and assessments on a predetermined percentage of wages of employees subject to Kentucky income tax.  The maximum recovery is capped at 50% of the company’s capital investment.  

Information above from Chapter 60 of Acts of the General Assembly, 2010 Regular Session, pp. 1389-1394 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statrev/tables/10rs/actsmas.pdf)

Morgan Daulton and Amanda Hall
mdaulton@ddfky.com and ahall@ddfky.com

 

July 13, 2010

Tax Issues Relating to Depletion

One of the largest tax deductions a mining operation may receive is for the depletion of the mineral which it is mining.  The tax rules for depletion are different than those used for Financial Statement reporting.  For Federal Income tax reporting, a deduction is allowed using either cost depletion or percentage depletion, whichever is greater.  Cost depletion is calculated by assigning each unit produced during the year or estimated to be in reserves at year-end a portion of the property’s basis.  The amount of basis allocated to units produced during the year is allowed as a deduction not to exceed the cost of the property.  Under the percentage depletion method the taxpayer may deduct a statutorily defined percentage of gross income from mining (10% for coal mining).  The percentage depletion deduction is limited to 50% of net income from mining on the property, but is not limited by the basis in the property.  Therefore, even after the entire cost basis in the property has been recovered through percentage depletion, a taxpayer may continue to take percentage depletion as long as there is net income from mining.

One caveat to the depletion deduction, especially as it relates to percentage depletion, is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  The AMT can significantly limit the usefulness of percentage depletion when the deduction exceeds the basis of the depletable property.  Once percentage depletion exceeds the net cost basis in the depletable property, the excess must be added back as a tax preference item for AMT.  This can typically cause either a corporation or individual who uses percentage depletion to be subject to AMT and effectively lose the benefit of the percentage depletion deduction for tax purposes.  The limitation for AMT enhances the importance to make the correct choice in determining whether to use percentage or cost depletion.

The depletion deduction can be highly beneficial for tax purposes, but also adds complexity to many taxpayers.  It is advantageous to properly use the most effective method of depletion given the tax situation of the operation and the operations shareholders.  If you have any questions please contact Melissa Coombs at mcoombs@ddfky.com or Mike McCreary at mmcreary@ddfky.com.