Annual prepaid expenses report. By January 31 of each year after 1980, the project operator with respect to any enhanced oil recovery project for which a report had been filed previously with DOE pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section as that paragraph was in effect on January 27, 1981, shall file with DOE a report in which the operator shall certify to DOE (a) which of the expenses that had been reported previously to DOE pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section as that paragraph was in effect on January 27, 1981, were prepaid expenses; (b) the goods or services for which such expenses had been incurred and paid; (c) the dates on which such goods or services are intended to be used; (d) the dates on which such goods or services actually are used; (e) the identity of each qualified producer to which such prepaid expenses had been attributed; and (f) the percentage of such prepaid expenses attributed to each such qualified producer. An operator shall file an annual prepaid expenses report each year until it has reported the actual use of all the goods and services for which a prepaid expense had been incurred and paid. For purposes of this paragraph, a prepaid expense is an expense for any injectant or fuel used after September 30, 1981, or an expense for any other item to the extent that IRS would allocate the deductions (including depreciation) for that item to the period after September 30, 1981.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control No.: 1903-0069)
[46 FR 43654, Aug. 31, 1981, as amended at 46 FR 63209, Dec. 31, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Union Oil Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 688 F.2d 797 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 10× “Pursuant to that directive, on July 26,1978, the DOE adopted an amendment to its price regulations, 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (1979), which provided that increased production of crude oil resulting from a qualified and certified enhanced recovery project would be exempt from price…”
Krause v. Comm'r, 99 T.C. 132 (Tax Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Under this program, which effectively expired in early 1981, qualified oil producers were allowed to sell oil at market prices, which prices were substantially higher than the *136 controlled prices of crude oil, in order to offset up to the lesser of $ 20 million or 75 percent…”
Pennzoil Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Lujan, 928 F.2d 1139 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “(1976) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “EPAA” unless otherwise indicated) and by 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 . Calculating “gross pro *1141 ceeds” of production sales on the basis of the unregulated prices actually received by Pennzoil during the period in question, as was done…”
Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Edwards, 510 F. Supp. 1376 (D. Del. 1981).
· cites it 7× “67 and the tertiary incentive program set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 in any manner that would adversely affect them.”
Shell Petroleum, Inc., & Subsidiary Corporations v. United States, 319 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“See 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (c) (1979). 9 Contrary to Shell’s assertion, therefore, its technological advancements were not necessary to the production of hydrocarbons because Shell has not demonstrated that its allegedly new technologies changed the pre-April 2, 1980, methods of…”
Exxon Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 601 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Del. 1985).
· cites it 3× “” 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (c). Producers were permitted to self-certify their projects as “qualified” and their expenses as “incurred” and “paid,” subject to possible DOE audit.”
Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 524 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 2× “10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (1979). . The parties do not dispute that “tertiary recovery methods,” "tertiary enhanced recovery methods,” and "enhanced recovery techniques” are the same.”
CanadianOxy Offshore Prod. Co. v. Comm'r, 100 T.C. 382 (Tax Ct. 1993).
· cites it 13× “) Each of petitioner’s leases qualified as a QTERP under 10 C.F.R. section 212.78 of the doe regulations and as a front-end tertiary project under section 4994(c)(4)(D).”
Elf Aquitaine, Inc. v. Placid Oil Co., 624 F. Supp. 994 (D. Del. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (1980) (revoked). TIP was established to encourage producers to undertake more expensive enhanced recovery projects, which otherwise would be uneconomical under price controls.”
Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 996 F. Supp. 361 (D. Del. 1997).
“4 10 C.F.R. 212.78 (1979); (DX 897). In the legislative history of Title I, Congress described crude oil as excluding “synthetic petroleum such as oil produced from .”
— 10 C.F.R. § 212.78(c) — 2 cases
Union Oil Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 688 F.2d 797 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1982).
“Pursuant to that directive, on July 26,1978, the DOE adopted an amendment to its price regulations, 10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (1979), which provided that increased production of crude oil resulting from a qualified and certified enhanced recovery project would be exempt from price…”
— 10 C.F.R. § 212.78(c)(1980) — 1 case
CanadianOxy Offshore Prod. Co. v. Comm'r, 100 T.C. 382 (Tax Ct. 1993).
“) Each of petitioner’s leases qualified as a QTERP under 10 C.F.R. section 212.78 of the doe regulations and as a front-end tertiary project under section 4994(c)(4)(D).”
— 10 C.F.R. § 212.78(c)(2) — 1 case
Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 524 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“10 C.F.R. § 212.78 (1979). . The parties do not dispute that “tertiary recovery methods,” "tertiary enhanced recovery methods,” and "enhanced recovery techniques” are the same.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.