« PreviousContinue »
92 C. Cls.
Cases Involving Indian Claims
ON DECEMBER 2, 1940
B-415. The Flandreau Band of Santee Sioux Indians.
Cases Involving Damages to Property by Set-Back Levee
ON OCTOBER 7, 1940
43555. Robert J. Clark.
43560. George S. Yerger et al.
Cases for Property Taken Under the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928
Cases dismissed on the authority of United States v. Sponenbarger et al., 308 U. S. 256, decided December 4, 1939.
ON OCTOBER 7, 1940
42888. Tensas Delta Land Co., and Monaghan Land Co.
ON NOVEMBER 12, 1910 42776. Thompson-Katz Lumber Com- 42889. United Gas pany.
Cases Involving N. I. R. A. Act of June 25, 1938
ON OCTOBER 7, 1940 44020. L. P. Friestedt Company.
44441. American Writing Paper Cor
ON DECEMBER 2, 1940 44144. Crown Laundry & Dry Clean- 44428. Joseph M. Mazer. ing Co.
44542. Moe-Bridges Corporation. 44399. Abe Sapper, et al.
Case Involving Air-Mail Contracts
ON NOVEMBER 12, 1940
43046. Kohler Aviation Corporation.
ON DECEMBER 2, 1940
17759. Congressional. Texas Cotton Growers' Association.
ON JANUARY 6, 1941
42611. Menzies Shoe Company. 42684. Menzies Shoe Company.
92 C. Cls.
44638. Maney Milling Company, 44656. Breen Renting Corporation.
ON FEBRUARY 3, 1941
48475. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
REPORT OF DECISIONS
THE SUPREME COURT
IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES
IRVING TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, V.
THE UNITED STATES
(90 C. Cls. 310; 311 U. S. 685, 728)
Income tax; valuation of assets in merger; cost of property acquired; "write-up" of assets binding; consolidation.
Decided January 8, 1940; petition dismissed; plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled April 1, 1940.
Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 21, 1940.
Rehearing denied, November 18, 1940.
THE UNITED STATES v. BYRON BROWN RALSTON
(91 C. Cls. 91; 311 U. S. 687)
Pay and allowances; right of retired Navy officer to allowances under special act; purpose of special act; failure to appropriate.
Decided April 1, 1940; judgment for plaintiff.
Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court, October 21, 1940.
EMIL MOSBACHER v. THE UNITED STATES
(90 C. Cls. 247; 311 U. S. 619)
Income tax; deduction for losses; statements by taxpayer. Decided January 8, 1940; petition dismissed.
92 C. Cls.
Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari granted by the Supreme Court November 18, 1940, and the judgment of the Court of Claims reversed in an opinion Per Curiam, as follows:
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings. Neuberger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 5, decided November 12, 1940. (311 U. S. 83.)
WILSON & COMPANY, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES WILSON & COMPANY, INC., OF KANSAS v. THE
T. M. SINCLAIR & CO., LTD., v. THE UNITED STATES
(Nos. 44641, 44642, and 44643]
(90 C. Cls. 131; 311 U. S. 104)
Certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Claims (December 4, 1939) dismissing the petitions on the ground that the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as to claims for refund of processing taxes on goods exported under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, is final under the provisions of Section 601 (e) of the Revenue Act of 1936, and no court has jurisdiction to review such determination.
The decision of the Court was affirmed, November 18, 1940, the Supreme Court holding:
1. Claims to refunds by exporters of products upon which processing or floor stock taxes had been paid under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, held governed by Sec. 601 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936 (which reenacted Sec. 17 (a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act), where claimants disa vow any attempt to proceed under Title VII of the Act.
2. Where, in the case of a claim for refund governed by Sec. 601 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936, the record does not show the ground of denial by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court of Claims is without jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's determination.
The opinion of the Supreme Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Murphy, as follows:
Petitioners are corporations engaged in the preparation, packing, and sale of meat products in foreign and domestic
92 C. Cls.
Between November 5, 1933 and January 6, 1936 they exported to foreign countries large quantities of hog products with respect to which they paid processing taxes under Section 9 (a) and floor stock taxes under Section 16 (a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. 48 Stat. 31, 35, 40. Subsequent to exportation petitioners filed claims for refunds under Section 17 (a). 48 Stat. 31, 40. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied all of the claims and suit in the Court of Claims followed. The United States thereupon moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction because of certain provisions of Title VII of the Revenue Act of 1936. 49 Stat. 1648, 1747–1755. The Court of Claims dismissed the actions for want of jurisdiction, on the ground, however, that Section 601 (e) of Title IV of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648, 1740, prevented judicial review of the Commissioner's action. 30 F. Supp. 672. To resolve the conflict with Cudahy Bros. Co. v. La Budde, 92 F. (20) 937, and Neuss, Hesslein & Co., Inc. v. United States, 30 F. Supp. 595, we granted certiorari. 309 U. S. 651.
The single question presented is whether the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction of petitioners' suits. We hold that it was.
Title VII conditions payment of refunds upon proof that the claimant actually bore the burden of the tax sought to be refunded or that he unconditionally repaid it to his vendee who bore the burden. Since petitioners do not allege satisfaction of these conditions it is plain that they do not claim under Title VII. Indeed, they disown any attempt to bring their claims within its provisions.
Title IV provides for refunds to exporters of products upon which processing or floor stock taxes have been paid. It is true that Section 17 (a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act provided for these refunds before the Act was held unconstitutional in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1. Whether petitioners could still establish refund claims under that section if the act had never been invalidated is a question we need not consider. For whatever the effect of that decision on Section 17 (a), Congress expressly made it a part of Title IV by reenacting it in Section 601 (a). 49 Stat. 1648, 1739. 'It follows that petitioners' claims, purportedly based on Section 17 (a), must be governed by Title İV and the limitations it imposes.
Section 601 (e) of Title IV provides:
“The determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with respect to any refund under this section shall
1 Sec. 601. (a) The provisions of sections ... 17 (8) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, are hereby reenacted but only for the purpose of allowing refunds in accordance therewith in cases where ... the exportation ... took place prior to January 6, 1936.