Armstrong v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

194 F.2d 875, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3874
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 1952
Docket10973-4
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 194 F.2d 875 (Armstrong v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armstrong v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 194 F.2d 875, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3874 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are petitions to review decisions of the Tax Court of the United States in renegotiation cases involving the years 1943 and 1944. Petitioner, an individual with an office in New York City, was during those years employed by several steel companies as a salesman on a straight-commission basis. Some of the sales upon which petitioner received his commissions were to companies which had contracts with the Government or were subcontractors under such contracts. The War Contracts Price Adjustment Board redetermined petitioner’s profits from such commissions. He petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination, principally upon the ground that he was not a subcontractor within the meaning of the Renegotiation Act.

The Renegotiation Act of 1943 1 provides, in pertinent part:

“(5) The term ‘subcontract’ means—
i{e $ í¡í % ijí
“(B) Any contract or arrangement * * * (i) any amount payable under which is contingent upon the procurement of a contract or contracts with a Department or of a subcontract or subcontracts, or determined with reference to the amount of such a contract or subcontract * * 2

Judge Disney of the Tax Court made detailed findings of fact and promulgated an exhaustive opinion upon the point. 3 We agree with his views, and upon that basis the decisions of the Tax Court are affirmed.

The Government says that this court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tax Court. However, we are of opinion that the question presented concerns the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, and therefore we have jurisdiction to review the point. 4

Affirmed.

1

. 58 Stat. 78 (1944), as amended, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 1191.

2

. 58 Stat. 80-81 (1944), 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1191(a) (5) (B).

3

. Armstrong v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 1950, 15 T.C. 625.

4

. U. S. Electrical Motors v. Jones, 1946, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 153 F.2d 134; Ring Const. Corporation v. Secretary of War, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 178 F.2d 714, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 943, 70 S.Ct. 796, 94 L.Ed. 1358; Lowell Wool By-Products Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. -, 192 F.2d 405.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

A. C. Ball Co. v. United States
531 F.2d 993 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Metallurgical, Inc. v. The Renegotiation Board
382 F.2d 843 (Eighth Circuit, 1967)
Edell v. United States
28 T.C. 601 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
Ebco Manufacturing Co. v. Secretary of Commerce
221 F.2d 902 (Sixth Circuit, 1955)
Eastern Woodworks, Inc. v. Vance
112 A.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1955)
United States v. Bass
129 F. Supp. 909 (D. Minnesota, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 F.2d 875, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-war-contracts-price-adjustment-board-cadc-1952.