• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

liskow_lewis_white_new

future-focused

  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
Blogs

New Developments in the Determination of the Texas Franchise Tax Liability

03.16.16 | 3 minute read

The Texas Franchise Tax is imposed on taxable entities that do business in Texas or that are chartered or organized in the state.  Taxpayers subject to the Texas Franchise Tax may compute their tax liabilities under several alternative methods to determine which one results in the lowest amount of tax due.

One such method is to start with the total revenue from the entire business and subtract from that amount either a deduction for the taxpayer’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) or a deduction for the compensation the taxpayer pays to its officers, directors, owners, partners and employees in determining taxable margin and the resulting tax liability.   A Texas appellate court decision last week may have made the deduction for COGS more valuable to taxpayers liable for Texas Franchise Tax.

In a Memorandum Opinion filed on March 9, 2016, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District (Austin, TX) affirmed the trial court’s decision that CGG Veritas Services (U.S.), Inc. ( “CGG Veritas”) was entitled to include its costs of labor and materials incurred to acquire and process seismic data for its clients in its deduction of COGS for Texas Franchise Tax purposes.  Hegar v. CGG Veritas Services (U.S.), Inc., No. 03-14-00713-CV (Mar. 9, 2016).   In computing its Texas Franchise Tax liability, CGG Veritas made the determination that deducting its COGS would provide a larger benefit than deducting its compensation paid.  Included in its COGS deduction were the costs of labor and materials incurred to acquire and process seismic data that it sold to clients who used the data to determine where to drill oil and gas wells.  CGG Veritas took the position that these costs were furnished “to a project for the construction, improvement . . . of real property” for purposes of Tex. Tax Code § 171.1012(i) and, pursuant to that section, it was entitled to include those costs in the computation of its COGS deduction.  Important to this position was that an oil and gas well was “real property” and that the drilling of such a well was a project for the construction of real property.  The State, on audit, at the trial court, and on appeal argued that CGG Veritas was a service provider who could not include the disputed costs in its deduction for COGS.

The appeals court applied its interpretation of the meaning of the term “labor” previously stated in Combs v. Newpark Resources, Inc., 422 S.W. 3d 46 (Tex. App. – Austin 2013) and concluded that the Texas legislature intended that entities subject to the Texas Franchise Tax could deduct a wide range of labor expenses, even those that might be described “services”, pursuant to section 171.1012(i).  According to the court, the test for whether a labor or material cost is includible in the COGS deduction in this context is whether the activity is an “essential and direct” component of the project for the construction of real property.

The appeals court then reviewed the findings of the trial court on this issue and found evidentiary support for the trial court’s determination that CGG Veritas’ costs for seismic data acquisition and processing activities were an integral, essential and direct component of the drilling process, a process clearly “a project for the construction of real property”.  Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of CGG Veritas.

The decision in CGG Veritas Services (U.S.), Inc. indicates that “labor and materials for a project for the construction or improvement of real property” will be broadly interpreted for purposes of the Texas Franchise Tax COGS deduction.  The decision is important for other oilfield services companies who now also may find that a COGS deduction is preferable to a compensation deduction in determining taxable margin and the resulting tax liability.

The decision also has implications for taxpayers outside of the oilfield business who produce and sell or license intellectual property to customers for the construction or improvement of real property.  These latter taxpayers may find like CGG Veritas that the sum of (a) essential and direct labor and materials incurred for a project for the construction or improvement of real property and (b) all other costs that properly are includible in COGS will exceed the compensation deduction in arriving at taxable margin for Texas Franchise Tax purposes. Liskow & Lewis can help in this determination.

Primary Sidebar

Related Practices

  • Litigation
  • Tax

Related Team

  • John T. Bradford
Liskow & Lewis, APLC
Arrow Icon

future-focused

  • Baton Rouge
  • Houston
  • Lafayette
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • © 2026 Liskow & Lewis, APLC
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Employee Login
Site by
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
  • Offices
  • Pro Bono
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • DEI
  • The Energy Law Blog
  • Gulf Coast Business Law Blog
  • The Maritime Law Blog