Hello Guest
Landowner Rights Denied By Moratorium      NY: 11 Years, 3 Months | DRBC: 10 Years, 6 Months
YOUR SUPPORT KEEPS US OPEN       
       More Information

This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting

  • 218 Replies
  • 52039 Views
*

Berak

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2009, 11:59:38 AM »
One thing is certain, the tax rate won't be going down anytime soon.

*

Buddy Ebsen

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2009, 12:55:44 PM »
2009 - 35% of everything over $372,950 plus 33% of everything between $171,550 & $372,950.

Them bonus checks are looking smaller  :'(

*

easy

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2009, 01:02:41 PM »
 Berak
23. Future Mortgages. Lessor may at any time mortgage all or any part of the leased premises as Lessor deems
necessary and appropriate, provided that mortgage is subordinated to this Lease
                           This is from a court case that I can not remember the details but as I was reading it I thought all gas companies will  have to add this to protect themselves.

WJ  Let us know when you have the royalties figured out as I feel the way you do with the wording.

Buddy  Do not forget State taxes
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 01:18:08 PM by easy »

*

aubrey

  • 14991
  • NEWBIE
Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2009, 01:03:35 PM »
ok, gotta bring up the aspect once again, that it may all be taxable in the year the lease is signed. it will depend on how the lease and order of payment are worded, but dont think you're gonna get away with tax avoidance, even tho in some cases thats legal.

wj
CHANGE IT BACK!

*

Buddy Ebsen

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2009, 01:07:00 PM »
It could be worse!  Thankfully it is not 1944.

1913 7% on all income over    500,000
1916 15% on all income over    2,000,000
1917 67% on all income over    2,000,000
1918 77% on all income over    1,000,000
1919 73% on all income over    1,000,000
1922 58% on all income over    200,000
1923 43.5% on all income over    200,000
1924 46% on all income over    500,000
1925 25% on all income over    100,000
1929 24% on all income over    100,000
1930 25% on all income over    100,000
1932 63% on all income over    1,000,000
1936 79% on all income over    5,000,000
1940 81.1% on all income over    5,000,000
1942 88% on all income over    200,000
1944 94% on all income over    200,000
1946 86.45% on all income over   200,000
1948 82.13% on all income over   400,000
1950 84.36% on all income over   400,000
1951 91% on all income over   400,000
1952 92% on all income over   400,000
1954 91% on all income over   400,000
1964 77% on all income over   400,000
1965 70% on all income over   200,000
1968 75.25% on all income over   200,000
1969 77% on all income over   200,000
1970 71.75% on all income over   200,000
1971 70% on all income over 200,000
1981 69.125% on all income over 215,400
1982 50% on all income over   85,600
1987 38.5% on all income over   90,000
1988 28% on all income over   29,750
1991 31% on all income over   82,150
1993 39.6% on all income over   89,150
1994 39.6% on all income over   250,000
2001 39.1% on all income over   297,350
2002 38.6% on all income over   307,050
2003 35% on all income over   311,950

*

aubrey

  • 14991
  • NEWBIE
Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2009, 01:10:47 PM »
not sure if i ever mentioned this before.

imo a 5+5 is actually a favored nations clause for the company in reverse, at their option!

would that they will ever grant such as this to us, the mere owners of the resource.

wj
CHANGE IT BACK!

*

easy

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2009, 01:14:57 PM »
Jim   It seems if the lease can be assigned it is all taxable in the year the lease is signed, no matter the structure of the payments. If the lease states it can not be assigned the taxes are due the years of payment. Makes no sense. They would never pick up on it if you paid the year you received the money. You will get different tax people to disagree, but the CPA's I have contacted in different states that to me are excellant all show me the assignable part.

*

aubrey

  • 14991
  • NEWBIE
Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2009, 01:19:37 PM »
assignment is one issue, but there are a couple of others.

the cowden case of '51 still sets precedent in this matter.

even if you split it between 2 years, you have exposure to liability for the total tax burden in the first.

the irs will more than likely be sitting up and taking notice to these leases and their payment structures now that we are at these levels of payment.

dont expect to slip thru the cracks unless you're a real gambler.

wj
CHANGE IT BACK!

*

joyful

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2009, 01:26:42 PM »
Anyone have thoughts on paragraph 8 (a) and the 3 year extension beyond the primary term @ $20/acre for Multi Well Sites?

*

rfscala

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2009, 01:41:38 PM »
I see the picking has begun in earnest. Glad I haven't had time since I downloaded the final lease early this morning.

I plan to print, compare, review, discuss with several brilliant legal minds, and research this whole thing over the next few days.

After all, we have until the end of the week before the signing EVEN BEGINS. And, I'm sure us "add ons" will wait longer, which is okey-dokey with me.

I have to say that my feeling is this on two subjects brought up so far (and this is just my opinion until I prove as noted above):

1. The tax issue can only be that you pay in the year the money is received.
2. The "mortgage subordinate to lease" thing is overblown in this area because we have not dealt with it yet. Every other place with drilling and mortgages is living normally somehow. We (and I mean us personally, the lending institutions, etc) are just not yet privy to how things are done. We will all discover that the lenders have acceptable legal protections, and then it will be standard operating procedure.

Robin

*

aubrey

  • 14991
  • NEWBIE
Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2009, 01:55:55 PM »
robin, we now know with certainty that you are incorrect on your issue #1.

this of course is dependent on the wording of the lease and the structure of the order of payment.

i know that you pay your taxes however you want to, but others need to be aware of the pitfalls of following that course of action.

i can pm you the proof that you are incorrect if you like.

and again, my apologies to all, for not devoting the time on the "definitive ruling" thread that might otherwise have saved some the hassles they are now going through.

wj

CHANGE IT BACK!

*

guardian

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2009, 02:16:13 PM »
robin, we now know with certainty that you are incorrect on your issue #1.

this of course is dependent on the wording of the lease and the structure of the order of payment.

i know that you pay your taxes however you want to, but others need to be aware of the pitfalls of following that course of action.

i can pm you the proof that you are incorrect if you like.

and again, my apologies to all, for not devoting the time on the "definitive ruling" thread that might otherwise have saved some the hassles they are now going through.

wj



Jim kindly PM me the proof, as well. Because I am with Robin on this one.

Now if you are making some nature of highly technical constructive receipt argument, well, that's another matter.  I do agree tax is due in the year money is constructively received.  Have used that to my advantage in the past.

Thanks
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 03:27:05 PM by guardian »

*

JETHRO

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2009, 02:21:07 PM »
2009 - 35% of everything over $372,950 plus 33% of everything between $171,550 & $372,950.

Them bonus checks are looking smaller  :'(
what about just below 372k?

*

easy

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2009, 02:31:37 PM »
Calling I.R.S. and getting an answer is no proof as they are not responsible for any misinformation they give you. Common sense means nothing either. I would only pay on the year received no matter what. The Wyoming County Group at one time had Hess willing to pay the most. They group felt that some members would owe more in taxes then they would receive the first year. Hess said they would not be responsible if they were wrong. Get a good tax advisor if you are not sure. 

*

guardian

Re: This Is The Real Wyoming Group Lease - Authorized by C. Lines for posting
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2009, 02:34:21 PM »
2009 - 35% of everything over $372,950 plus 33% of everything between $171,550 & $372,950.

Them bonus checks are looking smaller  :'(
what about just below 372k?

OK, Jethro, here that is again:

Take your bonus payment amount and add to it whatever will be your taxable income for the year you receive the bonus.

Your tax will be:

$100,894.50

plus 35% of the amount by which the above sum exceeds $372,950.

No matter how you do the math . . . it is a whale of a lot of money.

Finally, don't forget you will owe 3.1% state tax on your ENTIRE bonus payment.

I'm not sure about local tax where you are.

I'm happy to see posters here beginning to pay attention to tax.  It is not a trivial matter.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 02:52:07 PM by guardian »