Hugo Brand Tannery, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner having commenced business during the last base period year held entitled under section 722 (b) (4) to use a constructive average base period net income determined from the evidence.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Opper, Judge:
There appears to be no quarrel as to petitioner’s qualification for relief under section 722 (b) (4). Indeed, literal conformity to the requirements of that section could scarcely be more evident. Petitioner officially commenced business within the “base period,” on October 5,1939, to be precise, and so near to its close that despite respondent’s efforts, it seems difficult to deny that with an income of but $434.54 it had not reached its normal earning capacity by the end of its last base period year.1
It is rather the size of the reconstructed income, and its…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- National Grinding Wheel Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Block One Thirty-Nine, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ainsworth Mfg. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Pied Piper Shoe Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
- Ainsworth Mfg. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
- Hugo Brand Tannery, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Pied Piper Shoe Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.