Consolidated Asphalt Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
A paving contractor making its return on a cash basis and receiving the contract price upon completion of the construction work may not withhold from gross income a reserve of a portion of the price received, estimated to be the amount required to fulfill its contract obligation to maintain the pavement in good condition for five years after its construction.
1Opinion of the Court
*81OPINION.
Sternhagen:
In the years 1919 and 1920 the taxpayer received from the construction of certain asphalt street paving $1,097,216.55. About this there is no dispute. The contracts under which the work was done provided that upon the completion of the work the entire price should be paid. There was no provision such as is frequently found in such contracts that the city should withhold a portion of the price as a means of assuring the proper maintenance of the pavement, paying it over to the contractor in installments as the period of maintenance elapsed. Here the only assurance that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Lamson Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. ConynghamNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
3Cited by13 opinions
- Crossett Timber & Development Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Consolidated Asphalt Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1924
- Crossett Timber & Development Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Deer Island Logging Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Gallo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.