J. M. Turner & Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, on the basis of the facts presented, that petitioner is neither an "acquiring corporation" nor a "purchasing corporation," within the meaning of sections 461 (a) and 474 (a), respectively, of the Internal Revenue Code (1939); and, hence, that it is not entitled to use the base period experience of a certain proprietorship, in computing its excess profits credit for the year 1951.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Pierce, Judge:
The petitioner contends that, in computing its excess profits credit for the year 1951, it is entitled to use the base period experience of the business operated by J. M. Turner as a sole-proprietor, on the ground that it is either an “acquiring corporation” or a “purchasing corporation,” within the meaning of sections 461 (a) and 474 (a), respectively, of the Internal Eevenue Code (1939).4
At the outset, it will be observed that one of the essential prerequisites to qualification of the petitioner under section 461 (a) or 474 (a), is that petitioner must have acquired…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Halliburton v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
- E. T. Renfro Drug Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1948
- Hawaiian Freight Forwarders, Ltd. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1950
3Cited by3 opinions
- Berger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1996
- J. M. Turner and Company, Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1957
- J. M. Turner & Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956