Noble Energy, Inc. v. Colorado Department of Revenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the party 21 claiming a tax exemption bears the burden of proving that such an exemption applies
• holding that the tangible materials were not the true object of the transaction but merely incidental because, once consumed, the tangible aspects were “disposed of as 14 waste by the taxpayer immediately following the service”
• holding that the true object of hiring the oil and gas well fracturing companies was to receive an intangible service because the tangible aspects of the service that involved the use of fracturing fluids and sands were merely incidental
• applying Leanin' Tree to transactions in which a taxpayer hired oil well service companies to \fracture\ oil and gas wells
• even if prices of material used in “fracking” could be separated from the services, the issue is whether such materials are “meaningfully separable” under the Leanin’ Tree test
• we defer to the district court's factual findings if supported by the record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).