| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 11 ā COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: ā Environmental matters: ā The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Companyās environmental programs include, among others, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize the impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions. ā Environmental capital investments in the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018 were as follows (in millions): ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā 2019 2018 Peruvian operations ā $ 12.9 ā $ 38.0 Mexican operations ā 55.9 ā 35.3 ā ā $ 68.8 ā $ 73.3 ā Peruvian operations ā Air Quality Standards (āAQSā): In June 2017, MINAM enacted a supreme decree which defined new AQS for daily sulfur dioxide in the air. As of September 30, 2019, the Company maintains a lower daily average level of Āµg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of SO2, than those required by the AQS. ā Soil Environmental Quality Standards (āSQSā): In 2013, the Peruvian government enacted SQS applicable to any existing facility or project that generates or could generate the risk of soil contamination in its area of operation or influence. In March 2014, MINAM issued a supreme decree, which established additional provisions for the gradual implementation of SQS. ā In accordance with the regulatory requirements, the Company has been working on a characterization phase and a Soil Decontamination Plan (āSDPā) for environmentally impacted sites in each of its operating units (Toquepala, Cuajone, and Ilo) with the assistance of consulting companies. The Toquepala and Cuajone SDP have been presented to the authorities for review and approval in the third quarter of 2019, and the Ilo SDP will be submitted during the last quarter of 2019. ā While the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility that a potential loss contingency may exist, it cannot currently reasonably estimate the amount of the contingency. The Company believes that a reasonable determination of the loss will be possible once the characterization study and the SDP are substantially completed and approved, which is expected for 2020. At that time the Company will be in a position to estimate the remediation cost. Furthermore, the Company does not believe that it can estimate a reasonable range of possible costs until the noted studies have substantially progressed and therefore is not able to disclose a range of costs that is meaningful. ā Mexican operations ā The principal legislation applicable to the Companyās Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the āGeneral Lawā), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (āPROFEPAā). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. It may also initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent shutdown of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. ā In 2011, the General Law was amended, giving an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment as long as it can be argued that the harm may be caused. In addition, in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (āCFPCā) were enacted, which establish three categories of collective actions by means of which 30 or more people claiming injury derived from environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition issues will be considered to be sufficient in order to have a legitimate interest to seek through a civil procedure restitution or economic compensation or suspension of the activities from which the alleged injury derived. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm. ā In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. The law establishes general guidelines for actions to be considered to likely cause environmental harm. If a possible determination regarding harm occurs, environmental clean-up and remedial actions sufficient to restore environment to a pre-existing condition should be taken. Under this law, if restoration is not possible, compensation measures should be provided. Criminal penalties and monetary fines can be imposed under this law. ā On February 2019, the Mexican Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of an ecological tax on extractive activities developed in the state of Zacatecas, which taxes the environmental remediation actions, emissions of certain gases to the atmosphere, emissions of pollutant substances to the soil or water, and waste storage within the state territory. The Company has determined that this new environmental regulation will have no impact on its financial position. ā Guaymas sulfuric acid spill ā On July 9, 2019, at the CompanyĀ“s Marine Terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, there was an incident that caused the discharge of approximately three cubic meters of sulfuric acid into the sea in the industrial port area. ā The Guaymas bay has an estimated water volume of 340 million cubic meters, the spill upon entering in contact with the seaās alkaline conditions, the discharge was quickly diluted, the sulfuric acid was naturally and immediately neutralized. As a result the discharge was considered harmless, and it was found that neither the flora nor fauna of the port area were affected, according to the report from the Ministry of Navy. ā On July 10, 2019, the Mexican Environmental Protection Agency (āPROFEPAā) made a first inspection of the area, concluding that the Company executed all the correct procedures in order to contain the discharge, and no reference was made to the existence of negative impacts on the environment resulting from the incident. ā On Friday, July 19, 2019, PROFEPA revisited the facilities to carry out a second inspection, declaring a partial temporary shutdown related only to the storage process and transportation of sulfuric acid at the terminal, arguing the absence of an authorization of environmental impact. It is important to note that these facilities have been in operation since 1979, previous to the 1988 Mexican General Law of Ecological Balance and the Protection of the Environment. Therefore, these licenses are not a requirement for companies that have being operating before the mentioned law. In addition, PROFEPAās awarded in 2009 a certification of āClean Industry and Environmental Qualityā for such facility; which was subsequently renewed four times (for periods of two years each). ā The Company does not know the reasons or causes for this partial and temporary closure, but it will continue contributing with the environmental authorities with all the necessary elements in order to provide certainty with respect to the operation, in strict adherence to environmental regulations. The Company expects the environmental authorities to revoke the partial temporary shutdown, once they clarify their concerns. Currently, the Company does not expect any impact on its operations. ā The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other laws and regulations. The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will not have a material adverse effect on the Companyās business, properties, or result of operations. ā Litigation matters ā Peruvian operations ā The Tia Maria Mining Project ā There are four lawsuits filed against the Peruvian Branch of the Company related to the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits seek (i) to declare null and void the resolution which approved the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project; (ii) the cancellation of the project and the withdrawal of mining activities in the area and (iii) to declare null and void the mining concession application of the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits were filed by Messrs. Jorge Isaac del Carpio Lazo (filed May 22, 2015), Ernesto Mendoza Padilla (filed May 26, 2015), Juan Alberto Guillen Lopez (filed June 18, 2015) and Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo (filed April 30, 2015). ā The del Carpio Lazio case was rejected by the court of first instance on November 14, 2016. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Superior Court on January 3, 2017. On January 9, 2018, the lawyers of both parties presented their respective positions before the Appellate Court. On March 8, 2018, the Appellate Court issued its final decision, which upheld the first instance ruling. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. As of September 30, 2019, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Mendoza Padilla case was initially rejected by the lower court on July 8, 2015. This ruling was confirmed by the Superior Court on June 14, 2016. On July 12, 2016, the case was appealed before the Constitutional Court. On November 20, 2018, the Constitutional Court reversed the previous decisions and remanded the case to the lower court for further action. As of September 30, 2019, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Guillen Lopez case is currently before the lower court. On July 19, 2019, the oral hearing took place. As of September 30, 2019, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo case is currently before the lower court. On May 2016, the Company was included in the process, after the Ministry of Energy and Mines filed a civil complaint. On March 6, 2019, the Company was formally notified of the lawsuit and answered the complaint on March 20, 2019. As of September 30, 2019, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Company asserts that these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. The potential contingency amount for these cases cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. ā Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (āPasto Grande Projectā) ā In 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCCās Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCCās Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has constructed and operated the tailings dams with proper governmental authorization, since 1995. Upon a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court has included MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of September 30, 2019, the case remains pending resolution without further developments. SCCās Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it. The amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. ā Mexican operations ā The Accidental Spill at Buenavista Mine of 2014 ā In relation to the 2014 accidental spill of copper sulfate solution that occurred at a leaching pond of the Buenavista mine, the following legal procedures are pending against the Company: ā On August 19, 2014, PROFEPA, as part of the administrative proceeding initiated after the spill, announced the filing of a criminal complaint against Buenavista del Cobre S.A. de C.V. (āBVCā), a subsidiary of the Company, in order to determine those responsible for the environmental damages. During the second quarter of 2018, the criminal complaint was dismissed. This decision was appealed and remains pending resolution as of September 30, 2019. ā Through the first half of 2015, six collective action lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Mexico City and Sonora against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking economic compensation, clean up and remedial activities in order to restore the environment to its pre-existing conditions. Two of the collective action lawsuits have been dismissed by the court. As of September 30, 2019, three lawsuits continue in process: two were filed by Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa, A.C. and one was filed by Defensa Colectiva, A.C.; who have requested precautionary measures about construction of facilities for monitoring public health services and prohibiting the closure of the Rio Sonora Trust. ā Similarly, during 2015, eight civil action lawsuits were filed against BVC in the state courts of Sonora seeking damages for alleged injuries and for moral damages as a consequence of the spill. The plaintiffs in the state court lawsuits are: Jose Vicente Arriola Nunez et al; Santana Ruiz Molina et al; Andres Nogales Romero et al; Teodoro Javier Robles et al; Gildardo Vasquez Carvajal et al; Rafael Noriega Souffle et al; Grupo Banamichi Unido de Sonora El Dorado, S.C. de R.L. de C.V; and Marcelino Mercado Cruz. In 2016, three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages, were filed by Juan Melquicedec Lebaron; Blanca Lidia Valenzuela Rivera et al and Ramona Franco Quijada et al. In 2017, BVC was served with thirty-three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages. The lawsuits were filed by Francisco Javier Molina Peralta et al; Anacleto Cohen Machini et al; Francisco Rafael Alvarez Ruiz et al; Jose Alberto Martinez Bracamonte et al; Gloria del Carmen Ramirez Duarte et al; Flor Margarita Sabori et al; Blanca Esthela Ruiz Toledo et al; Julio Alfonso Corral DomĆnguez et al; Maria Eduwiges Bracamonte Villa et al; Francisca Marquez Dominguez et al; Jose Juan Romo Bravo et al; Jose Alfredo Garcia Leyva et al; Gloria Irma Dominguez Perez et al; Maria del Refugio Romero et al; Miguel Rivas Medina et al; Yolanda Valenzuela Garrobo et al; Maria Elena Garcia Leyva et al; Manuel Alfonso Ortiz Valenzuela et al; Francisco Alberto Arvayo Romero et al; Maria del Carmen Villanueva Lopez et al; Manuel Martin Garcia Salazar; Miguel Garcia Arguelles et al; Dora Elena Rodriguez Ochoa et al; Honora Eduwiges Ortiz Rodriguez et al; Francisco Jose Martinez Lopez et al; Maria Eduwiges Lopez Bustamante; Rodolfo Barron Villa et al, Jose Carlos Martinez Fernandez et al, Maria de los Angeles Fabela et al; Rafaela Edith Haro et al; Luz Mercedes Cruz et al; Juan Pedro MontaƱo et al; and Juana Irma Alday Villa. During the first quarter of 2018, BVC was served with another civil action lawsuit, claiming similar damages. The lawsuit was filed by Alma Angelina Del Cid Rivera et al. During the last quarter of 2018, BVC was served with other three civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages, such lawsuits were filed by Los Corrales de la Estancia, S.C. de R.L.; Jose Antonio Navarro; Jesus Maria PeƱa Molina, et al; those actions were dismissed by the court, because of their expiration. As of September 30, 2019, forty-five cases remain pending resolution. ā During 2015, four constitutional lawsuits (juicios de amparo) were filed before Federal Courts against various authorities and against a subsidiary of the Company, arguing; (i) the alleged lack of a waste management program approved by SEMARNAT; (ii) the alleged lack of a remediation plan approved by SEMARNAT with regard to the August 2014 spill; (iii) the alleged lack of community approval regarding the environmental impact authorizations granted by SEMARNAT to one subsidiary of the Company; and (iv) the alleged inactivity of the authorities with regard of the spill in August 2014. The plaintiffs of these lawsuits are: Francisca Garcia Enriquez, et al which established two lawsuits, Francisco Ramon Miranda, et al and Jesus David Lopez Peralta et al. During the third quarter of 2016, four additional constitutional lawsuits, claiming similar damages were filed by Mario Alberto Salcido et al; Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; Martin Eligio Ortiz Gamez et al; and Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame et al. During the third quarter of 2017, BVC was served with another constitutional lawsuit filed by Francisca GarcĆa Enriquez et al. In 2018, BVC was served with two additional constitutional lawsuits that were filed against SEMARNAT by Norberto Bustamante et al. Regarding the constitutional lawsuit filed by Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; in which it was claimed the lack of community approval regarding the authorization granted by SEMARNAT to build the new BVC tailings dam, on September 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a resolution which established that such authorization was granted to BVC in compliance with the applicable legislation. However, SEMARNAT must carry out a public meeting to inform the community of the technical aspects required to build the dam, potential impacts and prevention measures, with no material effects to BVCās operations. SEMARNAT has carried out the consultation ordered by the Supreme Court. As a result, has informed the corresponding Judge about its compliance with the resolution, in which BVC was imposed additional measures of environmental impact prevention, such as: (i) the building of at least three monitoring wells downstream from the curtain of the contingency dam in a period six months period; (ii) monitoring of the groundwater level and water quality every six months; (iii) carrying out rain collection work in order to restore water to the Sonora River basin, for which six months are granted to present the execution program; (iv) determine the location of wildlife conservation and protection areas and define the need to establish biological corridors; (v) obtain photographic or videographic evidence every six months; (vi) submitting to SEMARNAT two years before the closure and abandonment of the site, or earlier if necessary, the closure program that includes the cleaning and restoration of the soil including Mexican regulation NOM-141; (vii) include the measures in the Environmental Monitoring Program according to the environmental components impacted; and (viii) hiring an external environmental consultant to validate compliance with the current and new conditions that are imposed. The foregoing does not impact BVCās operations. Likewise, it is noted that the lawsuits promoted by Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame and Norberto Bustamante have been dismissed and closed without prejudice to the Company. As of September 30, 2019, the remaining cases are still pending resolution. ā It is not currently possible to determine the extent of the damages sought in these state and federal lawsuits but the Company considers that these lawsuits are without merit. Accordingly, the Company is vigorously defending against them. Nevertheless, the Company considers that none of the legal proceedings resulting from the spill, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. ā Corporate operations ā Carla Lacey, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation ā In April 2019, a derivative lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former Directors, and Grupo Mexico in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to certain construction contracts, contracts for the purchase and sale of minerals, and transportation contracts entered into between the Companyās subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico. ā In August 2019, SCC, the current and former Directors, and Grupo Mexico responded to the complaint by filing motions to dismiss. The plaintiff has until on or before October 25, 2019 to respond to the motions. Because SCC has not formed a conclusion as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, SCC expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to SCC. ā Labor matters ā Peruvian operations: ā As of September 30, 2019, the Company continues negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement with the remaining unsigned union. ā Mexican operations : ā The workers of the San Martin mine were on strike since July 2007. On February 28, 2018, the striking workers of the San MartĆn mine of IMMSA held an election to vote on the union that will hold the collective bargaining agreement at the San MartĆn mine. The Federacion Nacional de Sindicatos Independientes (the National Federation of Independent Unions), won the vote by a majority. Nevertheless, the vote was challenged by the National Mining Union. On June 26, 2018, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board issued a ruling recognizing the election results. Due to the agreement between workers and the Company to end the protracted strike, on August 22, 2018, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board authorized the restart of operations of the San MartĆn mine. Such authorization was challenged by the National Mining Union. On April 4, 2019, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board recognized again the election results from February 28, 2018; in which the National Federation of Independent Unions won by a majority. The Company is working on a rehabilitation plan to restore operations at the San Martin mine with a budget of $87 million. At September 30, 2019 the plan is in progress with a total expense of $70.2 million. ā In the case of the Taxco mine, its workers have been on strike since July 2007. After several legal procedures, in August 2015, the Supreme Court decided to assert jurisdiction over the case and to rule on it directly. As of September 30, 2019, the case remains pending resolution without further developments. ā It is expected that operations at the Taxco mine will remain suspended until the labor issues are resolved. In view of the lengthy strike, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of the Taxco mine to ascertain whether impairment exists. The Company concluded that there is a non-material impairment of the assets located at this mine. ā Other legal matters ā The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. ā Other commitments: ā Peruvian Operations ā Tia Maria: ā On August 1, 2014, the Company received the final approval of Tia MariaĀ“s Environmental Impact Assessment (āEIAā). On July 8, 2019, the Company received the construction permit for this 120,000 ton annual SX-EW copper greenfield project with a total capital budget of $1,400 million. This permit was obtained after completing an exhausting review process, complying with all established regulatory requirements and addressing all observations raised. ā On July 15, 2019, anti-mining groups staged a violent demonstration affecting economic as well as other activities in the Islay province. These actions were followed by the filing of three complaints, sponsored by groups opposing the Tia Maria project, with the Mining Council, which is the Peruvian administrative authority responsible to resolve on these complaints. The Mining Council temporarily suspended the construction permit on August 8, 2019 until a decision is reached on the complaints. On October 7, 2019, as part of the process, the Mining Council conducted a hearing on the complaints and the Company position. The Company strongly believes the noted claims have no merit and, consequently, expects a favorable decision on this matter. ā The CompanyĀ“s commitment is to guarantee the population of Islay that the Tia Maria project will not adversely affect other local economic activities. The project will use only desalinated seawater for its operations and, for the transportation of its supplies and copper production, the Company will build an 32 kilometer industrial railway and an access road at a safe distance from the Tambo Valley. ā The Company reiterates its commitment to delay the construction of the project until it has established, in coordination with the government, a common ground for dialogue with the neighboring communities to address any concerns and ā The CompanyĀ“s social programs in education, healthcare and productive development will continue to improve the quality-of-life and the agricultural and livestock activities in the Tambo Valley, as well as the fishing and tourism in Islay. During the construction and operation phase, hiring local labor will be a priority. The Company has successfully launched in June the free technical training program āForging the Futureā, which will benefit 700 persons in this province in 2019-20. After training, the participants will be eligible to apply for one of the estimated 9,000 jobs (3,600 direct and 5,400 indirect) required during the Tia Maria construction phase. The Company strongly believes that the initiation of construction activities for Tia Maria will generate significant economic opportunities for the Islay province and the Arequipa region. ā When in operation, the Company expects Tia Maria will generate a significant contribution through mining royalties and taxes from day-one and will directly employ 600 workers and indirectly provide jobs to another 4,200. ā Tia MariaĀ“s project budget is approximately $1.4 billion, of which $336.5 million has been invested through September 30, 2019. This project will use state-of-the-art SX-EW technology with the highest international environmental standards. SX-EW facilities are the most environmentally friendly in the industry as they do not require a smelting process and therefore, do not release any emissions into the atmosphere. ā Michiquillay: ā In June 2018, the Company signed a contract for the acquisition of the Michiquillay copper project in Cajamarca, Peru, at a purchase price of $400 million. Michiquillay is a world class mining project with estimated mineralized material of 1,150 million tons and a copper grade of 0.63%. It is expected to produce 225,000 tons of copper per year (along with by-products of molybdenum, gold and silver) for an initial mine life of more than 25 years. ā The Company paid $12.5 million at the signing of the contract. The balance of $387.5 million will be paid if the Company decides to develop the project and it is not a present obligation. ā Toquepala Concentrator Expansion: ā In April 2015, the construction permit for the Toquepala expansion project was approved by the MINEM. The project budget is $1,320 million, of which $1,296.8 million has been invested through September 30, 2019. This project will increase Toquepalaās annual copper production to 257,000 tons in 2019, a 51% production increase, when compared to 2018. The construction of the project was completed and the project began production in the fourth quarter of 2018. Full production was reached in the second quarter of 2019. ā Corporate Social Responsibility: ā The Company has a corporate social responsibility policy to maintain and promote continuity of its mining operations and obtain the best results. The main objective of this policy is to integrate its operations with the local communities in the areas of influence of its operations by creating a permanent positive relationship with them, in order to develop the optimum social conditions and to promote sustainable development in the area. Accordingly, the Company has made the following commitments: ā Tacna Region: ā Moquegua Region: ā In addition, the Company has committed S/ 202.0 million (approximately $59.8 million) for the construction of six infrastructure projects in the Moquegua region under the āsocial investment for taxesā (obras por impuestos) program which allows the Company to use these amounts as an advance payment of taxes. ā As the Toquepala expansion project has been completed, the Company considers that these commitments constitute present obligations of the Company and consequently has recorded a liability of $62.1 million in its condensed consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2019. ā Power purchase agreements: ā ā Electroperu S.A.: In June 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120 megawatt (āMWā) with the state power company Electroperu S.A., under which Electroperu S.A. began supplying energy for the Peruvian operations for twenty years starting on April 17, 2017. ā ā Kallpa Generacion S.A. (āKallpaā): In July 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120MW with Kallpa, an independent Israeli owned power company, under which Kallpa will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for ten years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2027. In May 2016, the Company signed an additional power purchase agreement for a maximum of 80MW with Kallpa, under which Kallpa began supplying energy for the Peruvian operations related to the Toquepala Expansion and other minor projects for ten years starting on May 1, 2017 and ending after ten years of commercial operation of the Toquepala Expansion or on April 30, 2029; whichever occurs first. ā Mexican operations ā Power purchase agreements: ā ā MGE: In 2012, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with MGE, an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply power to some of the Companyās Mexican operations through 2032. For further information, please see Note 6 āRelated party transactionsā. ā ā Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I. de C.V.: In 2013, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I de C.V. a windfarm energy producer that is an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply power to some of the CompanyĀ“s Mexican operations. For further information, please see Note 6 āRelated party transactionsā. ā Corporate operations ā Commitment for Capital projects: ā As of September 30, 2019, the Company has committed approximately $125.9 million for the development of its capital investment projects at its operations. ā Tax contingency matters: ā Tax contingencies are provided for under ASC 740-10-50-15 Uncertain tax position (see Note 5 āIncome taxesā). |
