Midvale Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner's claim for relief under section 722 on the ground of a "change" in the character of its business due to increased capacity actually installed or committed for prior to 1940, held properly disallowed in view of petitioner's failure to show that its reconstruction of a fair and just amount representing normal earnings was more than the excess profits credit to which it is entitled in any event under section 713.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Opper, Judge:
Regardless of other issues, petitioner must satisfy us that “a fair and just” amount to represent reconstructed base period earnings is greater than the actual credit to which it would be entitled under the excess profits tax provisions apart from section 722. In this case petitioner was automatically entitled to the benefits of the growth formula of section 713. It is not entitled to avail itself of both sections. Homer Laughlin, China Co., 7 T. C. 1325. It follows that unless it has shown here a reconstructed average base period net income resulting in a greater credit…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Blum Folding Paper Box Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Wisconsin Farmer Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
- Avey Drilling Machine Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1951
- East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- 7-Up Ft. Worth Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Coats & Clark, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
- Natatorium Laundry Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
- Tankport Terminals, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
- Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.