Legal Opinion · Dissent

Thermo King Corporation v. The United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided December 17, 1965No. 182-63Published

1DissentDavis, Judge

If we look only at the skin of the automotive-tax statute and regulations, we are forced, I think, to rule that plaintiff’s equipment is covered. Section 4061(b) of the 1954 Code levies the tax on sales of “parts and accessories” of trailers and semitrailers. The regulation (Treas.Reg. § 40.4061 (b)-2) includes within “parts and accessories” articles primarily designed to improve a truck (or chassis) or to be attached to it in order to add to its utility, whether or not the article is essential to operation or use. The first example given is an “automobile air conditioner." From the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Universal Battery Co. v. United States and Four Other CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. United States v. Leslie Salt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. New Jersey Automobile Club v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Hardware Underwriters & National Hardware Service Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1928
  5. J. P. Seeburg Piano Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1926

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API