XML 33 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 15. Commitments and Contingencies Performance Bonds In the normal course of business we have issued performance bonds to various state authorities that ensure payment of certain obligations. We have also issued a bond to protect our 401(k) retirement plan against losses caused by acts of fraud or dishonesty. The bonds have expiration dates in 2018 through the first quarter of 2020 and maximum potential future payments of $2.3 million. As of June 30, 2018, we were in compliance with all obligations to which the performance bonds pertain. Tax Matters We are subject to a number of state and local taxes that are not income-based. As many of these taxes are subject to audit by the taxing authorities, it is possible that an audit could result in additional taxes due. We accrue for such additional taxes when we determine that it is probable that we have incurred a liability and we can reasonably estimate the amount of the liability. As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we accrued $2.5 million and $1.7 million, respectively, for the outcomes of non-income based tax audits. We do not expect that the ultimate resolutions of these audits will result in a material variance from the amounts accrued. We do not accrue for unasserted claims for tax audits unless we believe the assertion of a claim is probable, it is probable that it will be determined that the claim is owed and we can reasonably estimate the claim or range of the claim. We believe the likelihood is remote that the impact of potential unasserted claims from non-income based tax audits could be material to our consolidated financial position, but it is possible that the resolution of future audits could be material to our consolidated results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the resolution occurs. Subject to the provisions of the tax matters agreement between Exterran Corporation and us, both parties agreed to indemnify the primary obligor of any return for tax periods beginning before and ending before or after the Spin-off (including any ongoing or future amendments and audits for these returns) for the portion of the tax liability (including interest and penalties) that relates to their respective operations reported in the filing. The tax contingencies mentioned above relate to tax matters for which we are responsible in managing the audit. As of both June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we recorded an indemnification liability (including penalties and interest), in addition to the tax contingency above, of $1.6 million for our share of non-income based tax contingencies related to audits being managed by Exterran Corporation. Insurance Matters Our business can be hazardous, involving unforeseen circumstances such as uncontrollable flows of natural gas or well fluids and fires or explosions. As is customary in our industry, we review our safety equipment and procedures and carry insurance against some, but not all, risks of our business. Our insurance coverage includes property damage, general liability and commercial automobile liability and other coverage we believe is appropriate. In addition, we have a minimal amount of insurance on our offshore assets. We believe that our insurance coverage is customary for the industry and adequate for our business; however, losses and liabilities not covered by insurance would increase our costs. Additionally, we are substantially self-insured for workers’ compensation and employee group health claims in view of the relatively high per-incident deductibles we absorb under our insurance arrangements for these risks. Losses up to the deductible amounts are estimated and accrued based upon known facts, historical trends and industry averages. Indemnification Obligations In connection with the Spin-off, we entered into a separation and distribution agreement which provides for cross-indemnities between Exterran Corporation’s operating subsidiary and us and established procedures for handling claims subject to indemnification and related matters. Generally, the separation and distribution agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of our business with us and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of Exterran Corporation’s business with Exterran Corporation. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, we and Exterran Corporation will generally release the other party from all claims arising prior to the Spin-off that relate to the other party’s business. Litigation and Claims In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending or threatened legal actions. While management is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, it believes that any ultimate liability arising from any of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, including our ability to pay dividends. However, because of the inherent uncertainty of litigation and arbitration proceedings, we cannot provide assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding to which we are a party will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, including our ability to pay dividends. Heavy Equipment In 2011, the Texas Legislature enacted changes related to the appraisal of natural gas compressors for ad valorem tax purposes by expanding the definitions of “Heavy Equipment Dealer” and “Heavy Equipment” effective from the beginning of 2012. Under the revised Heavy Equipment Statutes, we believe we are a Heavy Equipment Dealer, that our natural gas compressors are Heavy Equipment and that we, therefore, are required to file our ad valorem taxes under this new methodology. We further believe that our natural gas compressors are taxable under the Heavy Equipment Statutes in the counties where we maintain a business location and keep natural gas compressors instead of where the compressors may be located on January 1 of a tax year. As a result of this new methodology, our ad valorem tax expense (which is reflected in our condensed consolidated statements of operations as a component of cost of sales (excluding depreciation and amortization)) includes a benefit of $9.5 million during the six months ended June 30, 2018. Since the change in methodology became effective in 2012, we have recorded an aggregate benefit of $87.7 million as of June 30, 2018, of which $21.4 million has been agreed to by a number of appraisal review boards and county appraisal districts and $66.3 million has been disputed and is currently in litigation. A large number of appraisal review boards denied our position, although some accepted it, and our wholly owned subsidiary, Archrock Services Leasing LLC, formerly known as EES Leasing, and the Partnership’s subsidiary, Archrock Partners Leasing LLC, formerly known as EXLP Leasing, filed 176 petitions for review in the appropriate district courts with respect to the 2012 tax year, 109 petitions for review in the appropriate district courts with respect to the 2013 tax year, 115 petitions for review in the appropriate district courts with respect to the 2014 tax year, 120 petitions for review in the appropriate district courts with respect to the 2015 tax year, 113 petitions for review in the appropriate district courts with respect to the 2016 tax year and 113 petitions for review in the appropriate district courts with respect to the 2017 tax year. To date, only five cases have advanced to the point of trial or submission of summary judgment motions on the merits, and only three cases have been decided, with two of the decisions having been rendered by the same presiding judge. All three of those decisions were appealed, and all three of the appeals have been decided by intermediate appellate courts. On October 17, 2013, the 143rd Judicial District Court of Loving County, Texas ruled in EXLP Leasing LLC & EES Leasing LLC v. Loving County Appraisal District that EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing are Heavy Equipment Dealers and that their compressors qualify as Heavy Equipment, but the district court further held that the Heavy Equipment Statutes were unconstitutional as applied to EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s compressors. EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing appealed the district court’s constitutionality holding to the Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas. On September 23, 2015, the Eighth Court of Appeals ruled in EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s favor by overruling the 143rd District Court’s constitutionality ruling. The Eighth Court of Appeals also ruled, however, that EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s natural gas compressors are taxable in the counties where they were located on January 1 of the tax year at issue. On October 28, 2013, the 143rd Judicial District Court of Ward County, Texas ruled in EES Leasing LLC & EXLP Leasing LLC v. Ward County Appraisal District that EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing are Heavy Equipment Dealers and that their compressors qualify as Heavy Equipment, but the court held that the Heavy Equipment Statutes were unconstitutional as applied to their compressors. EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing appealed the district court’s constitutionality holding to the Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas, and the Ward County Appraisal District cross-appealed the district court’s rulings that EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s compressors qualify as Heavy Equipment. On September 23, 2015, the Eighth Court of Appeals ruled in EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s favor by overruling the 143rd District Court’s constitutionality ruling and affirming its ruling that EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s compressors qualify as Heavy Equipment. The Eighth Court of Appeals also ruled, however, that EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s natural gas compressors are taxable in the counties where they were located on January 1 of the tax year at issue. The Ward County Appraisal District and Loving County Appraisal District each filed (on January 27, 2016 and February 10, 2016, respectively) a petition asking the Texas Supreme Court to review its respective Eighth Court of Appeals decision. On March 11, 2016, EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing filed responses to the appraisal districts’ petitions and cross-petitions for review in each case asking the Texas Supreme Court to also review the Eighth Court of Appeals’ determination that natural gas compressors are taxable in the counties where they were located on January 1 of the tax year at issue. The Ward County Appraisal District filed its response to EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s cross-petition on June 6, 2016, and EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing filed their reply on June 21, 2016. The Loving County Appraisal District filed its response to EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s cross-petition on May 27, 2016, and EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing filed their reply on June 10, 2016. On March 18, 2014, the 10th Judicial District Court of Galveston, Texas ruled in EXLP Leasing LLC & EES Leasing LLC v. Galveston Central Appraisal District that EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing are Heavy Equipment Dealers and that their compressors qualify as Heavy Equipment, but the court held the Heavy Equipment Statutes unconstitutional as applied to their compressors. EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing appealed the district court’s constitutionality holding to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. On August 25, 2015, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued a ruling stating that EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s compressors are taxable in the counties where they were located on January 1 of the tax year at issue, and it remanded the case to the district court for further evidence on the issue of whether the Heavy Equipment Statutes are constitutional as applied to EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s compressors. On November 24, 2015, EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing filed a petition asking the Texas Supreme Court to review this decision. On March 21, 2016, the Galveston Central Appraisal District filed a response to EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s petition for review, and EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing filed their reply on April 26, 2016. In EES Leasing v. Irion County Appraisal District, EES Leasing and the appraisal district each filed motions for summary judgment in the 51st District Court concerning the applicability and constitutionality of the Heavy Equipment Statutes. On May 20, 2014, the district court entered an order denying both motions for summary judgment, holding that a fact issue existed as to the applicability of the Heavy Equipment Statutes to the one compressor at issue. The presiding judge for the 51st District Court has since consolidated the 2012 tax year case with EES Leasing’s 2013 tax year case, which also included EXLP Leasing as a party. On August 27, 2015, the presiding judge abated the combined case, EES Leasing LLC and EXLP Leasing LLC v. Irion County Appraisal District, until the final resolution of the appellate cases considering the constitutionality of the Heavy Equipment Statutes, or further order of the court. EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing also filed a motion for summary judgment in EES Leasing LLC & EXLP Leasing LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District, pending in the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The court heard arguments on the motion on December 6, 2013 but has yet to rule. No trial date has been set. On June 3, 2015, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas issued a decision reversing the 406th District Court’s dismissal of EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s tax appeals for want of jurisdiction. In EXLP Leasing LLC et. al v. Webb County Appraisal District, United Independent School District (“United ISD”) intervened as a party in interest and sought to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Under Section 42.08(b) of the Texas Tax Code, a property owner must pay before the delinquency date the lesser of (1) the amount of taxes due on the portion of the taxable value of the property that is not in dispute or (2) the amount of taxes due on the property under the order from which the appeal is taken. EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing paid zero taxes to Webb County because the entire amount of tax assessed by Webb County was in dispute. Instead, as required by the Heavy Equipment Statutes and Texas Comptroller forms, EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing paid taxes on the compressors at issue to Victoria County, where they maintain their place of business and keep natural gas compressors. The Webb County Appraisal District and United ISD contested EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s position that the Heavy Equipment Statutes contain situs provisions requiring that taxes be paid where the dealer has a business location and keeps its natural gas compressors, instead arguing that taxes are payable to the county where each compressor is located as of January 1 of the tax year at issue. The district court granted United ISD’s motion to dismiss on April 1, 2014 and declined EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s motion to reconsider. The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, based on the plain meaning of Section 42.08(b)(1), and because the entire amount was in dispute, EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing were not required to prepay disputed taxes to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. The Fourth Court of Appeals denied United ISD’s request for a rehearing. On September 29, 2015, United ISD filed a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. On December 4, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court denied United ISD’s petition for review. United ISD has four delinquency lawsuits concerning the 2012 tax year pending against EES Leasing and EXLP Leasing in the 49th District Court of Webb County, Texas. The cases have been abated pending the resolution of EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s 2012 tax year case pending in the 406th Judicial District Court of Webb County, Texas. On September 2, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court requested that consolidated merits briefs be filed in EES Leasing’s and EXLP Leasing’s cases against the Loving County Appraisal District, Ward County Appraisal District, and Galveston Central Appraisal District, as well as two similar cases involving different taxpayers. On September 19, 2016, the Supreme Court entered a consolidated briefing schedule for the five cases. Consolidated briefing was completed on February 7, 2017. On March 10, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court granted EXLP Leasing’s and EES Leasing’s petition for review in EXLP Leasing LLC & EES Leasing LLC v. Galveston Central Appraisal District. The case was argued before the Texas Supreme Court on October 10, 2017. On March 2, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of EXLP Leasing and EES Leasing by reversing the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ decision. In doing so, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Heavy Equipment Rules and held that compressors are taxable in the county of EXLP Leasing’s and EES Leasing’s business location, not where each compressor is located on January 1. On April 2, 2018, the Galveston Central Appraisal District filed a motion for rehearing. On April 3, 2018, EXLP Leasing and EES Leasing filed a letter stating that they do not plan to file a response to Galveston Central Appraisal District’s motion for rehearing unless the Texas Supreme Court requests they do so. We continue to believe that the revised statutes are constitutional as applied to natural gas compressors and that under the revised statutes our natural gas compressors are taxable in the counties where we maintain a business location and keep natural gas compressors. Recognizing the similarity of the issues and that these cases will ultimately be resolved by the Texas appellate courts, most of the remaining 2012-2017 district court cases have been formally or effectively abated pending final judgment from the Texas Supreme Court. If we are unsuccessful in our litigation, we would be required to pay ad valorem taxes up to the aggregate benefit we have recorded, and the additional ad valorem tax payments may also be subject to substantial penalties and interest. In addition, while we do not expect the ultimate determination of the issue of where the natural gas compressors are taxable under the Heavy Equipment Statutes would have an impact on the amount of taxes due, we could be subject to substantial penalties if we are unsuccessful on this issue. Also, if we are unsuccessful in our litigation, or if legislation is enacted in Texas that repeals or alters the Heavy Equipment Statutes such that in the future we do not qualify as a Heavy Equipment Dealer or our compressors do not qualify as Heavy Equipment, then we would likely be required to pay these ad valorem taxes under the old methodology going forward, which would increase our quarterly cost of sales expense up to approximately the amount of our then-most recent quarterly benefit recorded. If this litigation is resolved against us in whole or in part, or if in the future we do not qualify as a Heavy Equipment Dealer or our compressors do not qualify as Heavy Equipment because of new or revised Texas statutes, we will incur additional taxes and could be subject to substantial penalties and interest, which would impact our future results of operations, financial position and cash flows, including our ability to pay dividends. Other In addition, the SEC has been conducting an investigation in connection with certain previously disclosed errors and possible irregularities at one of our former international operations. We and Exterran Corporation are cooperating with the SEC in the investigation, which has included, among other things, responding to subpoenas for documents and testimony related to the restatement of prior period consolidated and combined financial statements and related disclosures and compliance with the FCPA, which were also being provided to the DOJ at its request. The SEC staff has provided notice that they have concluded their investigation relating to compliance with the FCPA and that they do not intend to recommend an enforcement action concerning compliance with the FCPA, and the DOJ has also provided notice that it does not intend to proceed with any further investigation or enforcement.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration