931 / How are mineral properties valued for federal transfer tax purposes?

(d) Determination of fair market value of mineral properties, and improvements, if any. –

(1)     If the fair market value of the mineral property and improvements at a specified date is to be determined for the purpose of ascertaining the basis (see Q 692), such value must be determined, subject to approval or revision by the district director, by the owner of such property and improvements in the light of the conditions and circumstances known at that date, regardless of later discoveries or developments or subsequent improvements in methods of extraction and treatment of the mineral product. The district director will give due weight and consideration to any and all factors and evidence having a bearing on the market value, such as cost, actual sales and transfers of similar properties and improvements, bona fide offers, market value of stocks or shares, royalties and rentals, valuation for local or State taxation, partnership accountings, records of litigation in which the value of the property and improvements was in question, the amount at which the property and improvements may have been inventoried or appraised in probate or similar proceedings, and disinterested appraisals by approved methods.

(2)     If the fair market value must be ascertained as of a certain date, analytical appraisal methods of valuation, such as the present value method will not be used:

(i)   If the value of a mineral property and improvements, if any, can be determined upon the basis of cost or comparative values and replacement value of equipment, or

(ii)  If the fair market value can reasonably be determined by any other method.”

Lambert v. U.S.,¹ concerned the federal estate tax valuation of an estate’s one-half interest in a coal mining business operated as a partnership. The parties agreed that the Treasury Regulations on cost depletion provided guidance as to the valuation of coal properties. Citing Treas. Reg. § 1.611-2(d)(2), above, the court found that the estate’s witness had properly determined the value of the intangible assets, including the coal reserves and good will, upon the basis of comparative values, and that for that reason, the analytical methods applied by the government and its witness were not appropriate. Accordingly, the court found that the estate had met its burden of showing that the government’s valuation of $3,772,326 for the coal company was excessive and that the fair market value, as determined by the estate, was $2,126,000.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.611-2(e) provides, for income tax purposes, the following:

(e)  Determination of the fair market value of mineral property by the present value method. –

(1)     To determine the fair market value of a mineral property and improvements by the present value method, the essential factors must be determined for each mineral deposit. The essential factors in determining the fair market value of mineral deposits are:

(i)   The total quantity of mineral in terms of the principal or customary unit (or units) paid for in the product marketed,

(ii)  The quantity of mineral expected to be recovered during each operating period,

(iii) The average quality or grade of the mineral reserves,

(iv)  The allocation of the total expected profit to the several processes or operations necessary for the preparation of the mineral for market,

(v)   The probable operating life of the deposit in years,

(vi)  The development cost,

(vii) The operating cost,

(viii) The total expected profit,

(ix)  The rate at which this profit will be obtained, and

(x)   The rate of interest commensurate with the risk for the particular deposit.

(2)     If the mineral deposit has been sufficiently developed, the valuation factors specified in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph may be determined from past operating experience. In the application of factors derived from past experience, full allowance should be made for probable future variations in the rate of exhaustion, quality or grade of the mineral, percentage of recovery, cost of development, production, interest rate, and selling price of the product marketed during the expected operating life of the mineral deposit. Mineral deposits for which these factors cannot be determined with reasonable accuracy from past operating experience may also be valued by the present value method; but the factors must be deduced from concurrent evidence, such as the general type of the deposit, the characteristics of the district in which it occurs, the habit of the mineral deposits, the intensity of mineralization, the oil-gas ratio, the rate at which additional mineral has been disclosed by exploitation, the stage of the operating life of the deposit, and any other evidence tending to establish a reasonable estimate of the required factors.

(3)     Mineral deposits of different grades, locations, and probable dates of extraction should be valued separately. The mineral content of a deposit shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. In estimating the average grade of the developed and prospective mineral, account should be taken of probable increases or decreases as indicated by the operating history. The rate of exhaustion of a mineral deposit should be determined with due regard to the limitations imposed by plant capacity, by the character of the deposit, by the ability to market the mineral product, by labor conditions, and by the operating program in force or reasonably to be expected for future operations. The operating life of a mineral deposit is that number of years necessary for the exhaustion of both the developed and prospective mineral content at the rate determined as above. The operating life of oil and gas wells is also influenced by the natural decline in pressure and flow, and by voluntary or enforced curtailment of production. The operating cost includes all current expense of producing, preparing, and marketing the mineral product sold (due consideration being given to taxes) exclusive of allowable capital additions, as described in §§ 1.612-2 and 1.612-4 (see Q 7865 through Q 7868), and deductions for depreciation and depletion (see Q 7869 through Q 7883), but including cost of repairs. This cost of repairs is not to be confused with the depreciation deduction by which the cost of improvements is returned to the taxpayer free from tax. In general, no estimates of these factors will be approved by the district director that are not supported by the operating experience of the property or which are derived from different and arbitrarily selected periods.

(4)     The value of each mineral deposit is measured by the expected gross income (the number of units of mineral recoverable in marketable form multiplied by the estimated market price per unit) less the estimated operating cost, reduced to a present value as of the date for which the valuation is made at the rate of interest commensurate with the risk for the operating life, and further reduced by the value at that date of the improvements and of the capital additions, if any, necessary to realize the profits. The degree of risk is generally lowest in cases where the factors of valuation are fully supported by the operating record of the mineral enterprise before the date for which the valuation is made. On the other hand, higher risks ordinarily attach to appraisals on any other basis.”