Mutual Shoe Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, where a constructive average base period net income is determined under the excess profits tax relief provisions of section 722, such constructive income is to be used in computing the credit for income tax purposes under section 26 (e).
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Mulroney, Judge:
All the facts have been stipulated and are herein incorporated by this reference.
Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts with its principal office at Marlboro, Massachusetts. The income tax returns, excess profits tax returns, and declared value excess-profits tax returns for the years involved were filed with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Massachusetts at Boston, Massachusetts. Claims for relief under section 722 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code for the same years were filed with the Commissioner of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Uni-Term Stevedoring Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
- West End Furniture Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- Morrisdale Coal Mining Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1953
- Advance Aluminum Castings Corp. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mutual Shoe Company v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1956
- Mutual Shoe Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955