Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, from the evidence, that petitioner, which commenced business during the base period, failed to establish assumed earnings under the push-back rule of an amount sufficient, under reconstruction, to result in an excess profits credit in excess of the amount allowed by the invested capital method without relief under section 722 of the Internal Revenue Code.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Withet, Judge:
Petitioner is claiming relief under subsections (a) and (b) (4)1 of section 722 of the Internal Eevenue Code, upon the ground that it commenced business during the base period and changed the character of its business in 1939 by a change in operation or management and a difference in the product furnished.
The respondent concedes that petitioner commenced business during the base period and to that extent complies with one of the conditions for application of subsection (b) (4) but denies that petitioner changed the character of its business as alleged. The disagreement…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Avey Drilling Machine Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
- 7-Up Ft. Worth Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Farmers Creamery Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
- Pabst Air Conditioning Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
- Clinton Carpet Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952