TABLE OF CONTENTS
Excess Costs. Costs exceeded revenues by $970,780 ($776,624 net to the trust) on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests in November 2008. Scheduled pipeline maintenance and limited regional demand led to lower realized gas prices for production in the Rocky Mountain region (see “Prices” above). These lower gas prices caused costs to exceed revenues on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interest, however, these excess costs did not reduce net proceeds from the remaining conveyances. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the onset of winter demand and completion of scheduled pipeline maintenance led to a partial rebound of Rocky Mountain gas prices, resulting in the full recovery of excess costs plus accrued interest of $3,192 ($2,554 net to the trust) in December 2008.
Costs exceeded revenues by $853,468 ($682,774 net to the trust) on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests in November and December 2007. Limited pipeline capacity and moderate regional demand led to lower realized gas prices for production in the Rocky Mountain region (see “Prices” above). These lower gas prices caused costs to exceed revenues on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interest, however, these excess costs did not reduce net proceeds from the remaining conveyances. XTO Energy advised the trustee that with winter demand and the completion of the first phase of a major pipeline expansion in January 2008, Rocky Mountain gas prices increased and the excess costs, plus accrued interest of $10,090 ($8,072 net to the trust), was fully recovered by February 2008.
Fourth Quarter 2008 and 2007
During fourth quarter 2008 the trust received net profits income totaling $17,591,558 compared with fourth quarter 2007 net profits income of $14,642,197. This 20% increase in net profits income was primarily due to increased oil and gas prices, partially offset by decreased oil and gas volumes and increased production expense.
Administration expense was $127,280 and interest income was $17,402, resulting in fourth quarter 2008 distributable income of $17,481,680, or $0.437042 per unit. Distributable income for fourth quarter 2007 was $14,565,560 or $0.364139 per unit. Distributions to unitholders for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 were:
 | |  | |  |
Record Date | | Payment Date | | Per Unit |
October 31, 2008 | | | November 17, 2008 | | | | $0.274018 | |
November 28, 2008 | | | December 12, 2008 | | | | 0.134378 | |
December 31, 2008 | | | January 15, 2009 | | | | 0.028646 | |
| | | | | | | $0.437042 | |
Volumes
Fourth quarter underlying gas sales volumes decreased 6% and underlying oil sales volumes decreased 5% from 2007 to 2008. Gas and oil sales volumes decreased primarily because of natural production decline and the timing of cash receipts, partially offset by increased production from new wells and workovers.
Prices
The average fourth quarter 2008 gas price was $6.03 per Mcf, or 26% higher than the fourth quarter 2007 average price of $4.77 per Mcf. The average fourth quarter 2008 oil price was $91.81 per Bbl, or 22% higher than the fourth quarter 2007 average price of $75.10 per Bbl. For further information about product prices, see “Years Ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 — Prices” above.
Costs
Taxes, Transportation and Other. Taxes, transportation and other generally fluctuates with changes in total revenues. Taxes, transportation and other increased 7% from 2007 to 2008 primarily due to the 18% increase in total revenues over the same period, partially offset by decreased property taxes.
Production. Fourth quarter production expense increased 30% from 2007 to 2008 primarily because of overall price increases as well as increased compressor rentals, location, maintenance and fuel costs.
Development. Development costs, which were deducted based on budgeted development costs, increased 7% from fourth quarter 2007 to 2008 primarily because of the timing of expenditures.
Overhead. Overhead increased 10% from fourth quarter 2007 to 2008 primarily because of the annual rate adjustment based on an oil and gas industry index.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Excess Costs. Costs exceeded revenues by $970,780 ($776,624 net to the trust) on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests in November 2008. Scheduled pipeline maintenance and limited regional demand led to lower realized gas prices for production in the Rocky Mountain region (see “Years Ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 — Prices” above). These lower gas prices caused costs to exceed revenues on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests, however, these excess costs did not reduce net proceeds from the remaining conveyances. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the onset of winter demand and the completion of scheduled pipeline maintenance led to a partial rebound of Rocky Mountain gas prices, resulting in the full recovery of excess costs plus accrued interest of $3,192 ($2,554 net to the trust) in December 2008.
Costs exceeded revenues by $853,468 ($682,774 net to the trust) on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests in November and December 2007. Limited pipeline capacity and moderate regional demand led to lower realized gas prices for production in the Rocky Mountain region (see “Prices” above). These lower gas prices caused costs to exceed revenues on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interest, however, these excess costs did not reduce net proceeds from the remaining conveyances. XTO Energy advised the trustee that with the onset of winter demand and the completion of the first phase of a major pipeline expansion in January 2008, Rocky Mountain gas prices increased and the excess costs, plus accrued interest of $10,090 ($8,072 net to the trust), was fully recovered by February 2008.
For further information about costs, see “Years Ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 — Costs” above.
See Item 7 of the accompanying Form 10-K for disclosures regarding liquidity and capital resources, off-balance sheet arrangements, contractual obligations and commitments, related party transactions and critical accounting policies of the trust. See Item 7A of the accompanying Form 10-K for quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk affecting the trust.
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Calculation of Net Profits Income
The following is a summary of the calculation of net profits income received by the trust:
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| | Year Ended December 31(a) | | Three Months Ended December 31(a) |
| | 2008 | | 2007 | | 2006 | | 2008 | | 2007 |
Sales Volumes
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gas (Mcf)(b)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Underlying properties | | | 28,176,094 | | | | 28,092,224 | | | | 29,628,079 | | | | 6,808,017 | | | | 7,253,325 | |
Average per day | | | 76,984 | | | | 76,965 | | | | 81,173 | | | | 74,000 | | | | 78,840 | |
Net profits interests | | | 13,134,564 | | | | 11,233,503 | | | | 12,871,453 | | | | 2,218,747 | | | | 2,413,294 | |
Oil (Bbls)(b)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Underlying properties | | | 341,754 | | | | 305,594 | | | | 332,525 | | | | 77,975 | | | | 82,039 | |
Average per day | | | 934 | | | | 837 | | | | 911 | | | | 848 | | | | 892 | |
Net profits interests | | | 169,915 | | | | 140,805 | | | | 145,230 | | | | 29,676 | | | | 34,495 | |
Average Sales Prices
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gas (per Mcf) | | | $ 7.75 | | | | $ 5.70 | | | | $ 6.59 | | | | $ 6.03 | | | | $ 4.77 | |
Oil (per Bbl) | | | $ 104.62 | | | | $ 64.35 | | | | $ 63.73 | | | | $ 91.81 | | | | $ 75.10 | |
Revenues
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gas sales | | | $218,253,910 | | | | $160,104,931 | | | | $195,130,332 | | | | $41,058,215 | | | | $34,589,223 | |
Oil sales | | | 35,754,556 | | | | 19,666,471 | | | | 21,190,530 | | | | 7,158,846 | | | | 6,160,932 | |
Total Revenues | | | 254,008,466 | | | | 179,771,402 | | | | 216,320,862 | | | | 48,217,061 | | | | 40,750,155 | |
Costs
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Taxes, transportation and other | | | 23,271,226 | | | | 18,429,983 | | | | 20,074,451 | | | | 4,643,403 | | | | 4,333,853 | |
Production expense | | | 27,454,543 | | | | 22,268,104 | | | | 22,231,559 | | | | 7,028,920 | | | | 5,391,813 | |
Development costs(c) | | | 46,000,000 | | | | 42,750,000 | | | | 51,700,000 | | | | 12,000,000 | | | | 11,250,000 | |
Overhead | | | 9,830,861 | | | | 9,052,303 | | | | 8,263,357 | | | | 2,552,099 | | | | 2,325,211 | |
Excess costs(d) | | | 866,750 | | | | (853,468 | ) | | | — | | | | 3,192 | | | | (853,468 | ) |
Total Costs | | | 107,423,380 | | | | 91,646,922 | | | | 102,269,367 | | | | 26,227,614 | | | | 22,447,409 | |
Net Proceeds | | | 146,585,086 | | | | 88,124,480 | | | | 114,051,495 | | | | 21,989,447 | | | | 18,302,746 | |
Net Profits Percentage | | | 80% | | | | 80 | % | | | 80 | % | | | 80% | | | | 80 | % |
Net Profits Income | | | $117,268,069 | | | | $70,499,584 | | | | $91,241,196 | | | | $17,591,558 | | | | $14,642,197 | |
| | | | |

| (a) | Because of the two-month interval between time of production and receipt of net profits income by the trust: 1) oil and gas sales for the year ended December 31 generally relate to twelve months of production for the period November through October, and 2) oil and gas sales for the three months ended December 31 generally relate to production for the period August through October. |
| (b) | Oil and gas sales volumes are allocated to the net profits interests based upon a formula that considers oil and gas prices and the total amount of production expense and development costs. Changes in any of these factors may result in disproportionate fluctuations in volumes allocated to the net profits interests. Therefore, comparative discussion of oil and gas sales volumes is based on the underlying properties. |
| (c) | See Note 5 to Financial Statements. |
| (d) | See Note 4 to Financial Statements. |
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS
 | |  | |  |
| | December 31 |
| | 2008 | | 2007 |
Assets
| | | | | | | | |
Cash and short-term investments | | | $1,145,840 | | | | $5,214,000 | |
Net profits interests in oil and gas properties – net (Notes 1 and 2) | | | 146,722,015 | | | | 155,820,033 | |
| | | $147,867,855 | | | | $161,034,033 | |
Liabilities and Trust Corpus
| | | | | | | | |
Distribution payable to unitholders | | | $1,145,840 | | | | $5,214,000 | |
Trust corpus (40,000,000 units of beneficial interest authorized and outstanding) | | | 146,722,015 | | | | 155,820,033 | |
| | | $147,867,855 | | | | $161,034,033 | |
STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME
 | |  | |  | |  |
| | Year Ended December 31 |
| | 2008 | | 2007 | | 2006 |
Net profits income | | | $117,268,069 | | | | $70,499,584 | | | | $91,241,196 | |
Interest income | | | 91,203 | | | | 135,125 | | | | 198,542 | |
Total income | | | 117,359,272 | | | | 70,634,709 | | | | 91,439,738 | |
Administration expense | | | 864,872 | | | | 1,246,189 | | | | 528,978 | |
Distributable income | | | $116,494,400 | | | | $69,388,520 | | | | $90,910,760 | |
Distributable income per unit (40,000,000 units) | | | $2.912360 | | | | $1.734713 | | | | $2.272769 | |
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS
 | |  | |  | |  |
| | Year Ended December 31 |
| | 2008 | | 2007 | | 2006 |
| |
Trust corpus, beginning of year | | | $155,820,033 | | | | $163,796,772 | | | | $171,935,330 | |
Amortization of net profits interests | | | (9,098,018) | | | | (7,976,739) | | | | (8,138,558) | |
Distributable income | | | 116,494,400 | | | | 69,388,520 | | | | 90,910,760 | |
Distributions declared | | | (116,494,400) | | | | (69,388,520) | | | | (90,910,760) | |
Trust corpus, end of year | | | $146,722,015 | | | | $155,820,033 | | | | $163,796,772 | |
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements.
12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Trust Organization and Provisions
Hugoton Royalty Trust was created on December 1, 1998 by XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as “Cross Timbers Oil Company”). Effective on that date, XTO Energy conveyed 80% net profits interests in certain predominantly gas-producing working interest properties in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming to the trust under separate conveyances for each of the three states. In exchange for the conveyances of the net profits interests to the trust, XTO Energy received 40 million units of beneficial interest in the trust. The trust’s initial public offering was in April 1999. The majority of the underlying working interest properties are currently owned and operated by XTO Energy (Note 7).
Bank of America, N.A. is the trustee for the trust. In 2007 the Bank of America private wealth management group officially became known as “U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management.” The legal entity that serves as the trustee of the trust did not change, and references in this Annual Report to U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management shall describe the legal entity Bank of America, N.A. The trust indenture provides, among other provisions, that:
| • | the trust cannot engage in any business activity or acquire any assets other than the net profits interests and specific short-term cash investments; |
| • | the trust may dispose of all or part of the net profits interests if approved by 80% of the unitholders, or upon trust termination. Otherwise, the trust may sell up to 1% of the value of the net profits interests in any calendar year, pursuant to notice from XTO Energy of its desire to sell the related underlying properties. Any sale must be for cash with the proceeds promptly distributed to the unitholders; |
| • | the trustee may establish a cash reserve for payment of any liability that is contingent or not currently payable; |
| • | the trustee may borrow funds to pay trust liabilities if repaid in full prior to further distributions to unitholders; |
| • | the trustee will make monthly cash distributions to unitholders (Note 3); and |
| • | the trust will terminate upon the first occurrence of: |
| — | disposition of all net profits interests pursuant to terms of the trust indenture, |
| — | gross proceeds from the underlying properties falling below $1 million per year for two successive years, or |
| — | a vote of 80% of the unitholders to terminate the trust in accordance with provisions of the trust indenture. |
2. Basis of Accounting
The financial statements of the trust are prepared on the following basis and are not intended to present financial position and results of operations in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles:
| • | Net profits income is recorded in the month received by the trustee (Note 3). |
| • | Trust expenses are recorded based on liabilities paid and cash reserves established by the trustee for liabilities and contingencies. |
| • | Distributions to unitholders are recorded when declared by the trustee (Note 3). |
The most significant differences between the trust’s financial statements and those prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles are:
13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
2. Basis of Accounting – (continued)
| • | Net profits income is recognized in the month received rather than accrued in the month of production. |
| • | Expenses are recognized when paid rather than when incurred. |
| • | Cash reserves may be established by the trustee for contingencies that would not be recorded under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. |
This comprehensive basis of accounting corresponds to the accounting permitted for royalty trusts by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as specified by Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, Financial Statements of Royalty Trusts.
Most accounting pronouncements apply to entities whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, directing such entities to accrue or defer revenues and expenses in a period other than when such revenues were received or expenses were paid. Because the trust’s financial statements are prepared on the modified cash basis, as described above, most accounting pronouncements are not applicable to the trust’s financial statements.
In December 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released Final Rule,Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting.The new disclosure requirements include provisions that permit the use of new technologies to determine proved reserves if those technologies have been demonstrated empirically to lead to reliable conclusions about reserves volumes. The new requirements also will allow companies to disclose their probable and possible reserves to investors. In addition, the new disclosure requirements require companies to: (a) report the independence and qualifications of its reserves preparer or auditor; (b) file reports when a third party is relied upon to prepare reserves estimates or conducts a reserves audit; and (c) report oil and gas reserves using an average price based upon the prior 12-month period rather than year-end prices. The new disclosure requirements are effective for financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 2009. The effect of adopting the SEC rule has not been determined, but it is not expected to have a significant effect on our reported financial position or distributable income.
The initial carrying value of the net profits interests of $247,066,951 was XTO Energy’s historical net book value of the interests on December 1, 1998, the date of the transfer to the trust. Amortization of the net profits interests is calculated on a unit-of-production basis and charged directly to trust corpus. Accumulated amortization was $100,344,936 as of December 31, 2008 and $91,246,918 as of December 31, 2007.
3. Distributions to Unitholders
The trustee determines the amount to be distributed to unitholders each month by totaling net profits income, interest income and other cash receipts, and subtracting liabilities paid and adjustments in cash reserves established by the trustee. The resulting amount is distributed to unitholders of record within ten business days after the monthly record date, which is the last business day of the month.
Net profits income received by the trustee consists of net proceeds received in the prior month by XTO Energy from the underlying properties, multiplied by 80%. Net proceeds are the gross proceeds received from the sale of production, less costs. Costs generally include applicable taxes, transportation, legal and marketing charges, production expense, development and drilling costs, and overhead (Note 7).
XTO Energy, as owner of the underlying properties, computes net profits income separately for each of the three conveyances (one for each of the states of Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming). If costs exceed revenues for any conveyance, such excess costs must be recovered, with accrued interest, from future net proceeds of that conveyance and cannot reduce net profits income from the other conveyances (Note 4).
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
4. Excess Costs
Costs exceeded revenues by $970,780 ($776,624 net to the trust) on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests in November 2008. Scheduled pipeline maintenance and limited regional demand led to lower realized gas prices for production in the Rocky Mountain region. These lower gas prices caused costs to exceed revenues on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interest, however, these excess costs did not reduce net proceeds from the remaining conveyances. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that the onset of winter demand and completion of scheduled pipeline maintenance led to a partial rebound of Rocky Mountain gas prices, resulting in the full recovery of excess costs plus accrued interest of $3,192 ($2,554 net to the trust) in December 2008.
Costs exceeded revenues by $853,468 ($682,774 net to the trust) on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interests in November and December 2007. Limited pipeline capacity and moderate regional demand led to lower realized gas prices for production in the Rocky Mountain region (see “Prices” above). These lower gas prices caused costs to exceed revenues on properties underlying the Wyoming net profits interest, however, these excess costs did not reduce net proceeds from the remaining conveyances. XTO Energy advised the trustee that with the onset of winter demand and the completion of the first phase of a major pipeline expansion in January 2008, Rocky Mountain gas prices increased and the excess costs, plus accrued interest of $10,090 ($8,072 net to the trust), was fully recovered by February 2008.
5. Development Costs
The following summarizes actual development costs, budgeted development costs deducted in the calculation of net profits income, and the cumulative actual costs compared to the amount deducted:
 | |  | |  | |  |
| | Year Ended December 31 |
| | 2008 | | 2007 | | 2006 |
Cumulative actual costs (over) under the amount deducted – beginning of period | | | $(675,754) | | | | $(3,410,174) | | | | $113,905 | |
Actual costs | | | (52,638,330) | | | | (40,015,580) | | | | (55,224,079) | |
Budgeted costs deducted | | | 46,000,000 | | | | 42,750,000 | | | | 51,700,000 | |
Cumulative actual costs (over) under the amount deducted – end of period | | | $(7,314,084) | | | | $(675,754) | | | | $(3,410,174) | |
The development cost deduction was lowered to $3.75 million per month beginning with the February 2007 distribution. Due to lower than anticipated actual costs as a result of the timing of expenditures, the development cost deduction was lowered to $2.0 million for the April and May 2007 distributions, but was increased to $3.75 million with the June 2007 distribution and was maintained at $3.75 million for the remainder of 2007 through the August 2008 distribution. Due to higher than anticipated costs as a result of the timing of expenditures, the monthly development cost deduction was increased to $4.0 million beginning with the September 2008 distribution and was maintained at that level for the remainder of 2008. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that this monthly deduction will continue to be evaluated and revised as necessary.
6. Federal Income Taxes
Tax counsel has advised the trust that, under current tax laws, the trust will be classified as a grantor trust for federal income tax purposes and, therefore, is not subject to taxation at the trust level. However, the opinion of tax counsel is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service.
For federal income tax purposes, unitholders of a grantor trust are considered to own the trust’s income and principal as though no trust were in existence. The income of the trust is deemed to be received or accrued by the unitholders at the time such income is received or accrued by the trust, rather than when distributed by the trust.
15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
6. Federal Income Taxes – (continued)
The trust is a widely held fixed investment trust (“WHFIT”) classified as a non-mortgage widely held fixed investment trust (“NMWHFIT”) for federal income tax purposes. The trustee is the representative of the trust that will provide tax information in accordance with the applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations governing the information reporting requirements of the trust as a WHFIT or a NMWHFIT.
7. XTO Energy Inc.
XTO Energy operates approximately 94% of the underlying properties. In computing net proceeds, XTO Energy deducts an overhead charge for reimbursement of administrative expenses on the underlying properties it operates. As of December 31, 2008, the overhead charge was approximately $850,000 ($680,000 net to the trust) per month and is subject to annual adjustment based on an oil and gas industry index as defined in the trust agreement.
In April and May 1999, XTO Energy sold 17 million trust units in the trust’s initial public offering, and later in 1999 and 2000, sold 1.3 million trust units to certain of its officers. The trust did not receive the proceeds from these sales of trust units. In May 2006, XTO Energy distributed all of its remaining 21.7 million trust units as a dividend to its common stockholders. XTO Energy currently is not a unitholder of the trust.
XTO Energy sells a significant portion of natural gas production from the underlying properties to certain of XTO Energy’s wholly owned subsidiaries under contracts in existence when the trust was created, generally at amounts approximating monthly published market prices. Most of the production from the Hugoton area is sold under a contract to Timberland Gathering & Processing Company, Inc. (“TGPC”) based on the index price. Much of the gas production in Major County, Oklahoma is sold to Ringwood Gathering Company (“RGC”), which retains approximately $0.31 per Mcf as a compression and gathering fee. TGPC and RGC sell gas to Cross Timbers Energy Services, Inc. (“CTES”), which markets gas to third parties. XTO Energy sells directly to CTES most gas production not sold directly to TGPC or RGC.
Total gas sales from the underlying properties to XTO Energy’s wholly owned subsidiaries were $103.3 million for 2008, or 47% of total gas sales, $76.6 million for 2007, or 48% of total gas sales and $103.2 million for 2006, or 53% of total gas sales.
8. Contingencies
Litigation
On October 17, 1997, an action, styledUnited States of America ex rel. Grynberg v. Cross Timbers Oil Company, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma by Jack J. Grynberg on behalf of the United States under thequi tam provisions of the U.S. False Claims Act against XTO Energy. The plaintiff alleges that XTO Energy underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from federal leases and lands owned by Native Americans in amounts in excess of 20% as a result of mismeasuring the volume of natural gas, incorrectly analyzing its heating content and improperly valuing the natural gas during at least the past ten years. The plaintiff seeks treble damages for the unpaid royalties (with interest, attorney’s fees and expenses), civil penalties between $5,000 and $10,000 for each violation of the U.S. False Claims Act, and an order for XTO Energy to cease the allegedly improper measuring practices. This lawsuit against XTO Energy and similar lawsuits filed by Grynberg against more than 300 other companies was consolidated in the United States District Court for Wyoming. In October 2002, the court granted a motion to dismiss Grynberg’s royalty valuation claims, and Grynberg’s appeal of this decision was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction in May 2003. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by XTO Energy and other defendants, in October 2006 the district judge held that Grynberg failed to establish the jurisdictional requirements to maintain the action against XTO Energy and other defendants and dismissed the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Grynberg has filed an appeal of this decision. While XTO Energy is unable to predict the final outcome of this case or estimate the amount of any possible loss, it has informed the trustee that it
16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
8. Contingencies – (continued)
believes that the allegations of this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. However, an order to change measuring practices or a related settlement could adversely affect the trust by reducing net proceeds in the future by an amount that is presently not determinable, but, in XTO Energy management’s opinion, is not currently expected to be material to the trust’s annual distributable income, financial position or liquidity.
An amended petition for a class action lawsuit,Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006, in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time. XTO Energy removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma City. A hearing on the class certification was conducted in October 2008. No decision has been made. The plaintiffs have not alleged in their petition an amount that they are seeking. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that it has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it, the trust will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if a judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management’s opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the trust’s annual distributable income, financial position or liquidity.
In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styledWallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs also seek to represent all royalty owners in these three states as a class. The plaintiff’s claims overlap the claims made by the plaintiffs in theBeer case as to certain properties. XTO Energy has answered and denied all claims. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy has strong defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it, the trust will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management’s opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the trust’s annual distributable income, financial position or liquidity.
Certain of the underlying properties are involved in various other lawsuits and certain governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these claims will have a material effect on trust annual distributable income, financial position or liquidity.
Other
Several states have enacted legislation to require state income tax withholding from nonresident recipients of oil and gas proceeds. After consultation with its state tax counsel, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it believes the trust is not subject to these withholding requirements. However, regulations could be issued by the various states which could change this conclusion. Should the trust be required to withhold state taxes,
17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
8. Contingencies – (continued)
distributions to the unitholders would be reduced by the required amount, subject to the unitholder’s right to file a state tax return to claim any refund due.
9. Supplemental Oil and Gas Reserve Information (Unaudited)
Proved oil and gas reserve information is included in Item 2 of the trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K included in this report.
10. Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)
The following is a summary of net profits income, distributable income and distributable income per unit by quarter for 2008 and 2007:
 | |  | |  | |  |
| | Net Profits Income | | Distributable Income | | Distributable Income per Unit |
2008
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
First Quarter | | | $22,035,854 | | | | $21,769,160 | | | | $0.544229 | |
Second Quarter | | | 33,899,248 | | | | 33,554,920 | | | | 0.838873 | |
Third Quarter | | | 43,741,409 | | | | 43,688,640 | | | | 1.092216 | |
Fourth Quarter | | | 17,591,558 | | | | 17,481,680 | | | | 0.437042 | |
| | | $117,268,069 | | | | $116,494,400 | | | | $2.912360 | |
2007
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
First Quarter | | | $16,735,385 | | | | $16,242,280 | | | | $0.406057 | |
Second Quarter | | | 21,251,246 | | | | 20,846,000 | | | | 0.521150 | |
Third Quarter | | | 17,870,756 | | | | 17,734,680 | | | | 0.443367 | |
Fourth Quarter | | | 14,642,197 | | | | 14,565,560 | | | | 0.364139 | |
| | | $70,499,584 | | | | $69,388,520 | | | | $1.734713 | |
18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Bank of America, N.A., as Trustee for the Hugoton Royalty Trust:
We have audited the accompanying statements of assets, liabilities, and trust corpus of the Hugoton Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and related statements of distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008. We also have audited Hugoton Royalty Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on criteria established inInternal Control — Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The trustee of Hugoton Royalty Trust is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and an opinion on the trust’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the trustee, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
As described in note 2 to the financial statements, these financial statements were prepared on the modified cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
The trust’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with the modified cash basis of accounting. The trust’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the trust; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with the modified cash basis of accounting, and that receipts and expenditures of the trust are being made only in accordance with authorizations of the trustee; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the trust’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the assets, liabilities, and trust corpus of Hugoton Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and its distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, in conformity with the modified cash basis of accounting described in note 2. Also in our opinion, Hugoton Royalty Trust maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on control criteria established inInternal Control — Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
KPMG LLP
Fort Worth, Texas
February 25, 2009
19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST
901 Main Street, 17th Floor
P.O. Box 830650
Dallas, Texas 75283-0650
(877) 228-5083
U.S. Trust, Bank of America
Private Wealth Management, Trustee
A copy of the Hugoton Royalty Trust Form 10-K has been provided with this Annual Report. Additional copies of this Annual Report and Form 10-K will be provided to unitholders without charge upon request. Copies of exhibits to the Form 10-K may be obtained upon request or from the trust’s web site atwww.hugotontrust.com.
WEB SITE
www.hugotontrust.com
AUDITORS
KPMG LLP
Fort Worth, Texas
LEGAL COUNSEL
Thompson & Knight L.L.P.
Dallas, Texas
TAX COUNSEL
Winstead PC
Houston, Texas
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
BNY Mellon Shareowner Services
www.bnymellon.com/shareowner
20