C. H. Swift & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Upon the evidence, held that petitioner is not on a "long-term contract" basis. 2. The parts of the accounting records introduced in evidence do not enable a revision of the books to more accurately compute the cost of various grades of lumber purchased on a log-run basis.
1Opinion of the Court
*141OPINION.
JLovu:
The question for decision is what method should be used in computing and reporting for income-tax purposes the income derived by petitioner from sales of lumber, which lumber had been purchased at “log-run prices,” which are average prices applied indis-criminatingly to various grades of lumber. The circumstances peculiar to the taxable year are detailed in the findings and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that early in the year the market for lumber was a “ seller’s ” market, petitioner departed from its usual custom of buying lumber on grade, and it entered into a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Heiner v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Effler v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- C. H. Swift & Sons, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
- Deer Island Logging Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Effler v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.