Moening & Heckmann v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board
United States Tax Court
In 1943 M and H were equal general partners carrying on two separate partnership businesses. Both partnerships produced machine tools, but the type of machine tools produced by each differed from that produced by the other.
Read the full summary
In 1943 M and H were equal general partners carrying on two separate partnership businesses. Both partnerships produced machine tools, but the type of machine tools produced by each differed from that produced by the other. The combined renegotiable receipts of the two partnerships in 1943 exceeded $ 500,000, but the renegotiable receipts of each were less than $ 500,000. (1) Held, the two partnership businesses were under common control within meaning of section 403 (c) (6) of the Renegotiation Act. (2) Held, petitioners have not proved that respondent erred in failing to exempt contracts…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
KeRn, Judge:
The respondent, by unilateral orders, had determined that the partnerships3 of Drill Head and Machine Tool received excessive profits in the amounts of $95,000 and 25,000, respectively, under the provisions of the Renegotiation Act, as amended by section T01 of the Revenue Act of 1943, herein referred to as the “Renegotiation Act.”
The petitioners raise two jurisdictional questions. The first question presented is whether Machine Tool and Drill Head, during the calendar year ended December 31,1943, were “under the control of or controlling or under common control with” the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grob Bros. v. Secretary of WarUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Greaves v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- Southland Steel Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- Continental Chemical & Engineering Supply v. PattersonUnited States Tax Court · 1948
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moening & Heckmann v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1950