Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
By a computation of average margins as provided by subsection (e)(1) of section 501, Revenue Act of 1936, the Commissioner has determined deficiencies in petitioner's unjust enrichment tax under subsection (a)(3) of section 501. Petitioner contests the correctness of this determination.
Read the full summary
By a computation of average margins as provided by subsection (e)(1) of section 501, Revenue Act of 1936, the Commissioner has determined deficiencies in petitioner's unjust enrichment tax under subsection (a)(3) of section 501. Petitioner contests the correctness of this determination. Held, the prima facie case made out by the Commissioner's computation of margins has been overcome by the evidence and such evidence shows that petitioner did not shift, either directly or indirectly, to its customers the tax which it paid under the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, and hence is not…
1Opinion of the Court
*155OPINION.
Black:
As has already been stated, part of the deficiencies in petitioner’s unjust enrichment tax for the years 1936 and 1937 were determined under the provisions of section 501 (a) (2) and part were determined under section 501 (a) (3), Revenue Act of 1936.
That part of the deficiencies determined under section 501 (a) (2) has been conceded by petitioner and is no longer in issue. All of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner under section 501 (a) (3) is in controversy.
Section 501 (a) (3) is printed in the margin.1
The statute in question provides that the Commissioner in his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Beale v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- Clinchfield Coal Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1942