Golbert v. Renegotiation Board
United States Tax Court
Held, that petitioner was not an "employee" of Ozone Metal Products Corp. during the year 1952, within the meaning of section 103 (g) (3) of the Renegotiation Act of 1951, and that, therefore, petitioner's contract with Ozone is not exempt from renegotiation.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Harron, Judge:
The only question is whether petitioner was a full-time employee of Ozone during the year 1952. Despondent determined that a contract between petitioner and Ozone is subject to renegotiation, and that petitioner realized excessive profits from the contract during 1952, which must be eliminated under the Penegotiation Act of 1951. The contract between petitioner and Ozone is subject to renegotiation only if it was a “subcontract” as defined in subsection (g) (3)1 of section 103 of the Eenegotiation Act of 1951. That subsection contains an exception which makes it…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. SilkSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Singer Manufacturing Co. v. RahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Cohen v. Secretary of WarUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- Bell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ellison v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- List & Clark Constr. Co. v. Renegotiation BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Ellison v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Golbert v. Renegotiation BoardUnited States Tax Court · 1957