Atzingen-Whitehouse Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. In computing milk company's gross income there must be excluded from its receipts amounts of rebates which it made to its customers pursuant to oral arrangements with them, notwithstanding that such rebates were in violation of State law.
Read the full summary
1. In computing milk company's gross income there must be excluded from its receipts amounts of rebates which it made to its customers pursuant to oral arrangements with them, notwithstanding that such rebates were in violation of State law. Pittsburgh Milk Co., 26 T.C. 707, followed. 2. Amount of disputed cash rebates for 1955 and 1956 determined. 3. A payment of $ 7,000 to the Office of Milk Industry of New Jersey as an "adjustment" for willful violation of minimum price law held not deductible as "ordinary and necessary" business expense. 4. Legal fee of $ 6,000 paid for services…
1Opinion of the Court
Atzingen-Whitehouse Dairy, Inc., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Atzingen-Whitehouse Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 83717
United States Tax Court
36 T.C. 173; 1961 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 164;
April 27, 1961, Filed
Decision will be entered under Rule 50.
1. In computing milk company's gross income there must be excluded from its receipts amounts of rebates which it made to its customers pursuant to oral arrangements with them, notwithstanding that such rebates were in violation of State law. Pittsburgh Milk Co., 26 T.C. 707, followed.
2. Amount of disputed cash rebates…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Sullenger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- Jerry Rossman Corporation v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Boyle, Flagg & Seaman, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.