Home/Court of Claims/Bullard Co. v. United States

Bullard Co. v. United States

364 F.2d 429, 176 Ct. Cl. 970
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 15, 1966
DocketNos. 479-61 and 190-62
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 F.2d 429 (Bullard Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bullard Co. v. United States, 364 F.2d 429, 176 Ct. Cl. 970 (cc 1966).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case plaintiff sues for tax refunds for each of the calendar years 1952, 1953 and 1954, based upon its right to deduct all of the taxes on its Bridgeport and Fairfield, Connecticut, properties in the year of assessment.

Although the facts in this case differ in some particulars from those in Hackensack Water Company v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 606, 352 F. 2d 807 (1965), the basic fact upon which the Hackensack case was decided, to wit, that the taxpayer changed his accounting method without having first secured the consent of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is also a fact in this case. We think that the Hackensack decision is controlling in this case.

Plaintiff asks us to reconsider our decision in the Hacken-sack case. We have done so and adhere to the view therein expressed. It results that plaintiff is not entitled to recover and its petition must be dismissed.

All the facts are stipulated. Prior to the tune plaintiff filed its claims for refund, it had deducted part of its taxes on the Bridgeport property in the year of assessment and the balance in the ensuing year. With respect to the Fairfield [972]*972property, it bad not deducted any of the taxes in the year of assessment, but deducted three-fourths of the taxes in the year following the year of assessment and the balance in the next year. When it filed its claims for refund, it claimed the right to deduct the entire tax on both properties in the year of assessment.

As stated, this was done without having sought and secured the consent of the Commissioner, and for the reasons stated in the Hackensack Water Company case, supra, plaintiff’s claims for refund were properly denied.1

FINDINGS OP PACT

The court, having considered the stipulations and the briefs of the parties, makes findings of fact as follows:

1. Docket Nos. 479-61 and 190-62 have been consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing and opinion.

2. Plaintiff is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut. Its principal office and place of business is located at 286 Canfield Avenue, Bridgeport 9, Connecticut.

3. Plaintiff’s Federal income and excess profits tax returns for the calendar years 1950,1951,1952 and 1953, and its Federal income tax returns for the calendar years 1954 and 1955, were filed with the Collector or District Director of Internal Bevenue for Connecticut. Plaintiff’s returns were filed on a calendar year basis. Plaintiff kept its books of account and prepared its returns under the accrual method of accounting.

4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff was the owner of real and personal property situated in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Fairfield, Connecticut. The property was [973]*973subject to real and personal property taxes of Bridgeport and Fairfield. The assessment date for Bridgeport and Fairfield real and personal property taxes was October 1 of each calendar year. 1 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1717 (1949). The lien date of the Bridgeport and Fairfield real property tax was October 1 of each calendar year. 1 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1853 (1949). The General Statutes of Connecticut further provide:

All taxes properly assessed shall become a debt due from the person, persons or corporation against whom they are respectively assessed, to the town, city, district or community in whose favor they are assessed, and may be, in addition to the other remedies provided by law, recovered by any proper action, in the name of the community in whose favor they are assessed.

1 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1842 (1949).

5. (a) At all times hereinafter mentioned, the annual Bridgeport real and personal property taxes were payable in two installments on April 1 and September 1 following the assessment date. The Bridgeport tax assessment is imposed on property owned on October 1 of a particular year for the city’s fiscal year beginning April 1 following the assessment date in the sense that payments of such tax are received by the city in such fiscal year and the assessment rates are fixed with reference to the city’s fiscal needs based on its budget for such fiscal year.

(b) The annual Fairfield real and personal property taxes were payable in four installments on July 1, October 1, January 1 and April 1, following the assessment date. The Fairfield tax assessment is imposed on property owned on October 1 of a particular year for that town’s fiscal year beginning July 1 following the assessment date in the sense that payments of such tax are received by the town in such fiscal year and the assessment rates are fixed with reference to the town’s fiscal needs based on its budget for such fiscal year.

[974]*9746. For many years prior to 1950, in determining its income for corporate purposes and for Federal income tax purposes, plaintiff deducted its Bridgeport and Fairfield property taxes as follows:

(a) With respect to Bridgeport property taxes assessed on property owned on October 1 of any particular year, plaintiff debited its expense account at the end of each of the months October through February in an amount substantially equal to one-twelfth of the estimated Bridgeport tax assessment. On March 31, after the tax rates were fixed and the precise amount of the assessment became known, plaintiff debited its expense account in the amount necessary to bring all prior debits up to one-half of the tax assessment. The remaining one-half of the tax assessment was debited to plaintiff’s expense account in substantially equal amounts at the end of each of the months April through September. In determining its income for general corporate and Federal income tax purposes, plaintiff treated as an expense accrued in the year within which the assessment date fell the amounts debited to its expense account as aforesaid in that year, and the balance of the tax assessment was treated as an expense accrued in the ensuing year. -
(b) With respect to Fairfield property taxes assessed on property owned on October 1 of any particular year, plaintiff commenced debiting its expense account at the end of the month of April of the following year in an amount substantially equal to one-twelfth of the estimated tax assessment, and continued to make monthly debits at the end of each month thereafter through the end of March of the next year. The Fairfield tax rates normally became known in May or June following the year in which fell the assessment date, and, when those rates and the precise amount of the assessment became known, plaintiff adjusted its debit at the end of the month of May and/or June so as to cause the total debits to its expense account for the first three months to equal one-quarter of the tax. The remaining three-fourths of the tax assessment was debited to plaintiff’s expense account in substantially equal amounts at the end of each of the months July through March. In determin[975]

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

Related

Petroleum Heat and Power Co., Inc. v. The United States
405 F.2d 1300 (Court of Claims, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
364 F.2d 429, 176 Ct. Cl. 970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-co-v-united-states-cc-1966.