Iverson & Laux, Inc. v. Forrestal
United States Tax Court
The Tax Court has no jurisdiction of a proceeding filed pursuant to subsection (e) (2) of section 403 of the Renegotiation Act to contest a determination of excessive profits, where the petition was filed by a subcontractor described in subsection (a) (5) (B) of section 403.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
TurneR, Judge-.
The respondent has moved to dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner is a subcontractor described in section 403 (a) (5) (B) of the Renegotiation Act and, as such, is excluded by the provisions of section 403 (e) (2) of that act from filing a petition with this Court for a redetermination of the amount of profits for its fiscal year ended December' 31, 1942, determined by the respondent to be excessive.
Under date of June 28,1945, the respondent, pursuant to renegotiation under the Renegotiation Act, determined that $15,000…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Dowell v. ForrestalUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- Wolff & Phillips v. MacauleyUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Trace v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Fine v. War Contracts Price Adjustment BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Bittner v. United StatesUnited States Tax Court · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.