Matheson Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Relief is asked under section 722 (b) (1) and ( 5) of the Internal Revenue Code. Held, on the facts, that normal production, output or operation was not interrupted or diminished within section 722 (b) (1) and that it is not shown that average base period net income was an inadequate standard of earnings, under either subsection (b) (1) or (b) (5). Relief denied. 2. Held, further, abnormal deductions under section 711 (b) (1) (J) (i) not shown.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Disney, Judge:
In its applications to the Commissioner for relief, petitioner invoked subsections (b) (1), (4) and (5) of section 722. Here it relies only upon subsections (b) (1) and (5).1
As grounds for relief in the claims filed with the Commissioner under subsection (b) (1) petitioner relied upon events which It classified by the term “Loss of management.” The same events were relied upon as factors for relief under (b) (5). The statement made by petitioner for each claim, sets forth, among other things, the illness and subsequent death of Matheson; that Mrs. Matheson was a drug…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lucas v. Ox Fibre Brush Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Monarch Cap Screw & Mfg. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1945
- Clinton Carpet Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
3Cited by22 opinions
- Granite Constr. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
- Triangle Raincoat Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1952
- Crowell-Collier Pub. Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- Fulton Foundry & Machine Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- A. Finkl & Sons Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.