Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in this action, Procter & Gamble Company (“P & G”) and Proctor & Gamble FSC (“P & G FSC”)(collectively, “plaintiffs”), seek a refund of taxes paid pursuant to assessments by the government. One of the assessments concerned the FSC Advance Payment Transaction. At the administrative level, the government defended the assessment on the ground that plaintiffs’ calculation of Combined Taxable Income (“CTI”) resulted in a material distortion of income. In the present lawsuit, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lehman v. NakshianSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. DalmSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Angelus Milling Co. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Ottawa Silica Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Dorothy E. Brown and Donald Lee Brown and United States National Bank of Oregon, Etc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- American Financial Group v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010
- Dixon v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2022