Stockton v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
During 1936 petitioner received reimbursements from two of his vendors representing amounts of Federal excise tax burdens included in prices paid by petitioner to such vendors in 1935. Upon the basis of the evidence and the application of subsections (e)(2) and (i)(1) of section 501, Title III, of the Revenue Act of 1936, determination is made of the part of the processing taxes petitioner absorbed, and the part he passed on to his vendees and is taxable on in computing his…
Read the full summary
During 1936 petitioner received reimbursements from two of his vendors representing amounts of Federal excise tax burdens included in prices paid by petitioner to such vendors in 1935. Upon the basis of the evidence and the application of subsections (e)(2) and (i)(1) of section 501, Title III, of the Revenue Act of 1936, determination is made of the part of the processing taxes petitioner absorbed, and the part he passed on to his vendees and is taxable on in computing his unjust enrichment tax.
1Opinion of the Court
*517OPINION.
Black :
The question in this proceeding is whether the respondent erred in determining that, under section 501 (a) (2) of the Bevenue Act of 1986, petitioner was subject to an unjust enrichment tax equal to 80 percent of $3,841.55, representing reimbursements of Federal excise tax burdens received by petitioner during the calendar year 1936 from two of his vendors, which reimbursements had been included in prices paid by petitioner to such vendors during the taxable year 1935. The provisions of section 501 (a) (2) are set forth in our opening statement. Section 501 (d) provides:(d) The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cherokee Textile Mills v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1947
- Bernard G. Brennan Co., an Illinois corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Dependable Packing Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Stockton v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1941