Glenshaw Glass Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Payment of royalties during base period because of patent injunction obtained against petitioner just prior to its base period, the fraudulent nature of which became manifest by close of base period, held to qualify petitioner for relief under section 722 (b) (5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Constructive average base period net income determined.
1Opinion of the Court
Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Glenshaw Glass Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 36536
United States Tax Court
23 T.C. 1004; 1955 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 228;
March 14, 1955, Filed
Decision will be entered under rule 50.
Payment of royalties during base period because of patent injunction obtained against petitioner just prior to its base period, the fraudulent nature of which became manifest by close of base period, held to qualify petitioner for relief under section 722 (b) (5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Constructive average base period…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Granite Constr. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
- United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1942
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.