Legal Opinion

Moening v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

United States Tax Court

Decided April 17, 1950No. Docket Nos. 413-R, 414-RPublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Grob Bros. v. Secretary of WarUnited States Tax Court · 1947
  2. Greaves v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1948
  3. Southland Steel Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1949
  4. Continental Chemical & Engineering Supply v. PattersonUnited States Tax Court · 1948

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Warner v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1950
  2. Hoffman v. United StatesUnited States Tax Court · 1954
  3. Harney v. LandUnited States Tax Court · 1950
  4. Lowell Wool By-Products Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1950
  5. Harney v. LandUnited States Tax Court · 1950

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API