Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Vericoals, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 869 S.W.2d 49 (1994)

Citation
Vericoals, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 869 S.W.2d 49 (1994)
Parent Document
Vericoals, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, 869 S.W.2d 49 (1994)
Jurisdiction
Kentucky (state)
Effective Date
1994-01-28

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text

869 chars
Vericoals also maintains that the substance of the contract between Vericoals and Unit Coal belies the plain language of the contract, and that the operative provisions of the agreement are such that Unit Coal had the economic interest. We believe that substance and form of the agreement are consistent. Vericoals did not relinquish its economic interest in the minerals by its agreement with Unit Coal. Vericoals looked not only to Unit but also to the income derived from the extraction of the coal for the return of its capital in the coal. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.611; Palmer v. Bender, 287 U.S. 551, 53 S.Ct. 225, 77 L.Ed. 489 (1933). Thus Veri-coals also looked to the sale of the coal for its income and not merely to the other contracting party. Cf. Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 380 U.S. 624, 635, 85 S.Ct. 1207, 1212, 14 L.Ed.2d 116 (1965).