OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Saul Richard Gamer with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a) [since September 1, 1969, Rule 134(h)]. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on February 27, 1969. Plaintiff filed no exceptions to the commissioner’s findings of fact but did except to his opinion and recommended conclusion of law. Defendant requested adoption of the findings of fact and the recommended conclusion of law. The case has been submitted to the court on the briefs of the parties and oral argument of counsel.
Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case.
OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
GAMER, Commissioner: Plaintiff seeks recovery of over $3,150,000 as claimed overpayments of federal income and excess profits taxes, and interest paid thereon, for plaintiff’s calendar year 1951, plus statutory interest.1
Plaintiff (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Continental”) has long been a manufacturer of can containers for food, beverages, and other products.
For over 35 years prior to January 1, 1951 (i. e., ever since its incorporation in 1913), plaintiff, as an incident of the sale of cans to its customers (canners), installed in their plants certain equipment which effected proper closure of the cans. During that period, plaintiff [407]*407leased the equipment to its customers at nominal rentals under an arrangement, however, whereby the user of the equipment was obliged to purchase its can requirements from plaintiff. Plaintiff leased the equipment only to its container customers. Plaintiff’s can-closing machines were not held for sale and (except for a few isolated and immaterial instances) were not sold.
In August 1946, the Government instituted an action in the District Court for the Northern District of California against Continental for alleged violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The action was in part based upon Continental’s restricted sales policy and its practice of tying the sale of containers into the leasing of the closing equipment. The Government sought either (a) divestitute of the closing-machine part of Continental’s business, or (b) a judgment declaring Continental’s arrangement with its customers to be illegal and requiring it to either sell or lease its closing machines to any applicant on nondiscriminatory terms.
The American Can Company, the country’s largest manufacturer of food and beverage containers (Continental being the next largest) had engaged in substantially the same practices. At the same time that the Government instituted its action against Continental, it also brought a similar action in the same court against American Can.
In September 1949, the Government and Continental entered into a stipulation whereby further proceedings in Continental’s case were suspended pending a final decision in the American Can case. Continental agreed that, if a decree would be entered against American Can in its case, a similar decree could be entered against Continental at the same time, with the proviso, however, that Continental’s decree would contain no provision requiring divestiture of the closing machine portion of its business even though American Can would be ordered to divest. If American Can were ordered to divest, Continental was left free to litigate such question in its case.
On November 10, 1949, American Can’s activities were found to be in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. United States v. American Can Co., 87 F.Supp. 18 (N.D.Cal.). In the subsequent proceedings to determine the appropriate remedy, the Government urged divestiture. In opposing such divestiture, American Can offered to undertake a closing equipment sales program as part of its business operations. The court approved this proposal. Accordingly, divestiture was not ordered. See American Can Company v. C. I. R., 317 F.2d 604 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 993, 84 S.Ct. 632, 11 L.Ed.2d 479 (1964).
After negotiations between Continental and the Government with respect to the wording of the final judgment and decree to be entered against Continental, the court, on June 26, 1950, entered such a judgment and decree. In accordance with the provisions of the stipulation, divestiture was not ordered. Continental was directed, however, to cease its discriminatory closing equipment sales and ■ leasing practices. The effective date of the injunctive provisions and the provisions concerning nondiscriminatory sales and leasing was January 1, 1951.
The decree stated, under the heading “Policy,” that it was its purpose “to assure to those interested in owning container closing machines * * * the opportunity to purchase such machines * * * owned or controlled by defendant as of January 1, 1951,” and that, with respect to equipment manufactured after such date, Continental was “to adopt a policy of affording to all those desiring such machines or equipment every available economic incentive to purchase such machines and equipment.” Under the heading “Closing Machines— Sale,” Continental was directed to sell, for a ten-year period, “to any applicant * * * in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Judgment, any container closing machine which it owns on the effective date of this provision, or thereafter manufactures or acquires.” The decree further provided that exist[408]*408ing lessees should, by a special communication, be advised of their prior right to purchase, at prices calculated in accordance with a formula established in the decree, the closing machinery then in their possession. Further, plaintiff was ordered in the future to sell or lease to any applicant machinery that it was then selling or leasing to its container customers. In order to insure that plaintiff complied with these and other provisions of the decree a special master was appointed to supervise such compliance, gather information regarding plaintiff’s actions, and report to the Attorney General. (The master was the same one appointed pursuant to the corresponding portion of the American Can decree.)
Thereafter, plaintiff developed a program, including advertising materials, circulars, and specially prepared letters, to promote the sales of the equipment. Among other things, it furnished all of its lessees information concerning the methods, terms, and advantages of owning the equipment.
After January 1, 1951, plaintiff, in compliance with the decree, granted each of its closing equipment lessees an option to purchase and, further, embarked upon a general sales program designed to sell the machines.
Substantially all of the lessees then in possession thereafter proceeded to purchase the equipment. During the year 1951, plaintiff realized gross receipts of $4,005,899 from such sales of closing equipment which plaintiff had owned for more than six months prior to January 1, 1951. Net gains in the amount of $1,720,639 were realized from such sales.
In its 1951 tax return, plaintiff reported such sum of $1,720,639 as gains from the sale of capital assets held for more than six months. Section 117 (j) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code provides capital gains treatment for sales of “property used in the [taxpayer’s] trade or business,” which is defined, insofar as is here pertinent, as property (a) of a character that is subject to a depreciation allowance, (b) is held for more than six months, and (c) is not “property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.”
However, when, in 1951 and the years thereafter, plaintiff sold closing equipment manufactured or acquired prior to 1951 to those not lessees-in-possession, or sold equipment manufactured or acquired after January 1, 1951, either to lessees-in-possession at the time of the sale or to those who were not leasing the purchased equipment at such time, it reported the gains derived from such sales as ordinary income.
After an audit of plaintiff’s said 1951 tax return (by the District Director of Internal Revenue, Manhattan, New York), defendant made a determination that the $1,720,639 gain did not qualify for capital gains treatment because, in its opinion, the closing equipment constituted “property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business” under section 117(j). Accordingly, plaintiff’s tax was recomputed on the basis of such gain’s constituting ordinary income. On this basis, such amount also became includable in plaintiff’s excess profits net income and was so included in defendant’s recomputation of plaintiff’s excess profits tax for such year.
After payment of the claimed deficiencies, with interest, plaintiff filed a claim for refund of income taxes (plus interest) in the amount of $3,157,721, or, in the alternative, for refund, even if the gain were held to constitute ordinary income under section 117(j), of the assessed deficiency with respect to the excess profits taxes (plus interest), in the amount of $1,327,518, such alternative claim being based on a contention that income of the type herein involved falls within the “abnormal income” exception contained in the statutory provisions relating to the excess profits tax. More than six months having passed without any action on the claim having been taken by the Commissioner of In[409]*409ternal Revenue, the petition herein was timely filed.2
THE INCOME TAX ISSUE
There is no dispute concerning the closing equipment in question constituting property subject to depreciation and, as of the dates of sale in 1951, having been held by plaintiff for more than six months. The only dispute between the parties is whether the equipment constituted “property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business.” And, as stated, the only equipment involved in such dispute is that manufactured or acquired by plaintiff prior to January 1, 1951 (the effective date of the decree), which was on lease and sold to lessees-in-possession during the year 1951.
Plaintiff, pointing to the long period of time prior to 1951 during which it held the machines only for rental purposes, contends that, as of the 1951 sales dates, the machines had not been held “primarily” for sale to customers. The evidence shows that some machines sold in 1951 had been held by plaintiff as long as thirty years. The average age of the machines sold was at least 16.6 years.3 Because of such extended period during which rental was the sole basis of holding, and, on a comparative basis, the brief period, i. e., only portions of the year 1951, during which the machines had been held for sale, it becomes manifest, says plaintiff, that on an overall basis the property had been held “primarily” for rental and not for sale. And, it also argues, because of such long holding the gain resulted from a “ ‘realization of appreciation in value accrued over a substantial period of time,’ ” Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 572, 86 S.Ct. 1030, 16 L.Ed.2d 102 (1966), i. e., the type of gain normally entitled to capital gains treatment.
Further it contends that the closing equipment sales did not result from an activity arising from the “mainstream” and ordinary course of its business. Its business, says plaintiff, was the making and selling of whole, finished cans. The sealing to effect completion must be accomplished at the canner’s plant after the cans are packed (the closing process, considered as sealing the tops on the cans, being identical with the process of fixing the bottoms to the cans, a process accomplished at plaintiff’s own plants with substantially identical machines). Thus, plaintiff argues, the machinery only constituted part of its manufacturing facilities which produced the product it sold — cans. As such, the gains from the sales of the closing equipment, termed “productive capital goods,” (Pltf. Brief, p. 5) were, it contends, “separate from the main-stream of the enterprise,” and therefore entitled to receive the “more lenient treatment” afforded to capital gains as distinguished from the ordinary income treatment accorded “profits and losses arising from the everyday operation of a business * * Recordak Corporation v. United States, 325 F.2d 460, 462, 163 Ct.Cl. 294, 298 (1963). The antitrust decree which, in effect, required the disposition of these capital assets, could not, it argues, serve to change the basic nature of the transaction, i. e., a disposition of machinery that had been used for many years only to manufacture cans and that had never theretofore been offered as an independent sales item.
The very nature of the machinery sales compelled by the decree demonstrates, plaintiff further argues, that the sales were not made in the “ordinary” course of business. Instead they consti[410]*410tuted, it contends, unusual and extraordinary transactions. This is so, it says, because (a) the decree fixed the sales price of the machines located at the lessees’ plants, thus depriving Continental of control over the price at which its own property was to be liquidated; (b) such prices bore no relation to fair market value (and in fact generally were below such value, as well as below replacement cost) and therefore “had nothing to do with the ordinary course of commerce”4 (Pltf. Brief, p. 11); (c) plaintiff was deprived of customer choice (lessees-in-possession were, as shown, given priorities for the purchase of the equipment they were leasing); (d) plaintiff was deprived of the right to determine what machinery it would sell (again on the basis that the lessee had the right to purchase the particular machine he was leasing); (e) plaintiff could not even fix the payment terms (since the decree required it to grant installment credit terms to purchasers); and (f) the interposition of the special master’s supervisory actions constituted an interference with plaintiff’s conduct of its own operations.
For the following reasons, these contentions of the plaintiff cannot be accepted :
Where there is a change in the purpose of the holding of an asset, as there was here (as of January 1, 1951), the period of time prior to the date when such change took place, upon which plaintiff places such stress, is, even though lengthy as compared with the period of holding after such change-in-purpose date, not of importance in determining the “primarily” issue. The basic question is the primary purpose of holding as of the date of the sale. Recordak Corporation v. United States, supra; Nadalin v. United States, 364 F.2d 431, 176 Ct.Cl. 1032 (1966). And where a company is, at such date, regularly engaged in the dual business of selling and renting its machines, then income resulting from either activity satisfies the “primarily” concept, since it is “a part of” the “normal stream * * * of the taxpayer’s business” and not “outside * * * [or] separate from the main-stream of the enterprise * * Recordak Corporation, supra, 325 F.2d at 462, 163 Ct.Cl. at 298. In the similar Recordak case, the taxpayer, for over twenty years prior to 1950, only rented its microfilming equipment. However, in that year “there was a change in operation,” i. e., the taxpayer, in order to obtain working capital, “decided that as of July 31, 1950, it would sell as well as rent all of its stock of microfilmers” (325 F.2d at 460, 176 Ct.Cl. at 295), and this dual sale-or-rent business activity continued even after the taxpayer’s need for working capital ended (in 1953). The continuance of the sales activity resulted from the introduction of a new model, the taxpayer thereafter deciding to dispose of the older equipment. This court rejected the taxpayer’s claim to capital gains treatment for gains resulting from the sales of the older equipment. It held that such sales had, ever since 1950, formed “an accepted part of the taxpayer’s regular business,” and that “[i]f the purchasers are properly considered customers of that regular business, the taxpayer’s dealings with them results in ordinary income.” (325 F.2d at 462, 163 Ct.Cl. at 298). And, specifically addressing itself to the “primarily” question in the case of a sale-or-rent operation, the court stated:
Nor can plaintiff succeed by hitching its wagon to the word “primarily.” Whatever the precise scope of that troublesome term in other contexts,5 it does not exclude from ordinary income the proceeds of sales by one, like plaintiff, who conducts a dual enterprise involving both rentals and sales [411]*411of the same type of goods. In that setting, “primarily” invokes a contrast, not between selling and renting, but between selling in the ordinary course of business and selling outside of that normal course. * * * [T]he goods are held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of * * * trade or. business” because they are regularly offered for sale to customers as part of the normal operation of the enterprise. No case of this kind has allowed capital gains treatment. [325 F.2d at 463, 163 Ct.Cl. at 300]
Thus, with the exception of the “liquidation” cases, i. e., “where property has been sold [pursuant to an apparent businesslike activity] as a nonrecurring final disposition of a holding or business” (id.), when the sales income regularly results from the day-today conduct of a continuing business operation, as is here the situation, it makes no difference that a substantial part of the gain from such sales may have resulted from an increase in value which accrued during the longtime holding period prior to the change in purpose which resulted in the establishment of the business. Recordak Corporation, supra; Nadalin, supra. Accordingly, if one decides to go into business using as inventory property held for a long period which has increased in value and which, in accordance with the original purpose of acquisition and the immediately following holding, would, upon disposition, have been entitled to capital gains treatment, the conversion of such holding purpose and the resulting dedication of the property to a business-inventory purpose also serve to convert the proceeds from the sales of the property from capital gains to ordinary income.
The attempt to cast these sales in the “liquidation” mold of cases must also be rejected. Of course, in a certain sense, any sale, even of an ordinary item of inventory made in what everybody would agree was in the regular course of business, could be said to constitute the “liquidation” of an “investment,” for a businessman certainly “invests” in his inventory. However, the essence of the true liquidation cases in this tax law area is, as above stated, “the final disposition of a holding or business,” such as small sales resulting from the inability to dispose of inherited or investment property en bloc, or the winding up (due to a reorganization, insolvency, etc.) of a business operation or a phase thereof.6 The situation here, however, is the direct antithesis. The sales herein involved were made as an incident to the commencement of a new business, to be conducted on a permanent basis, and not as an incident to the winding up of an old one. The sales of identical machines manufactured or acquired subsequent to January 1, 1951, are conceded to constitute ordinary income, as indeed are sales of pre-1951 machines made to anyone other than a lessee-in-possession as of January 1, 1951. Only these particular sales are carved out as allegedly being entitled to special treatment. It seems obvious, however, that all sales of the equipment made after January 1, 1951, to customers for use in their canning operations should be treated alike and as part of the new business activity entered into as of such date.
Similarly, it is not possible to accept the contention that the sales were not made in the “ordinary” course of business because of the various regulatory terms of the decree. It is true that this phase of plaintiff’s business, conducted as it was pursuant to the terms of an antitrust decree, was, naturally, regulated and supervised. But from the beginning plaintiff fought divestiture and sought to remain in the closing-equipment business. Its stipulation to abide by the results of the American Can liti[412]*412gation specifically excepted divestiture. It certainly knew that, if its activities were held to constitute transgressions of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the conduct of this phase of its business operations, assuming it were permitted to remain therein at all, would necessarily, at least for a period of time, be required to be conducted pursuant to the terms of a decree. And when, after such illegality was established, American Can offered to make its machines available for sale as well as for rent, and, in connection therewith, to engage in. a vigorous sales program, and thereby persuaded the district court not to order the divestiture for which the Antitrust Division was pressing, plaintiff accepted the same terms. It collaborated with the Government attorneys in fashioning the decree under which it would operate, including superintendence by the same special master who would supervise American Can’s activities. For plaintiff, therefore, this newly established equipment sales portion of its overall business operations, conducted in accordance with the decree terms, would necessarily become its “ordinary” business. Plaintiff knew that the sale of the equipment to lessees-in-possession as of January 1, 1951, was one of the principal purposes of the new business upon which it was embarking. Many businesses are, for various reasons, subject to forms of regulation. This does not, however, make their everyday conduct in accordance therewith anything other than “ordinary,” even though, despite their owners’ deliberate choice to engage in such a regulated business, they might well prefer to conduct their business activities free of regulatory restriction.
Indeed, when this same contention was presented to the Second Circuit by American Can in its case involving the identical income tax issue as is here involved, the court considered the entire question of the reason why the taxpayer conducted this portion of the business as it did to be immaterial:
But the taxpayer would have us read I.R.C. 1939, § 117(j) (1) (B) to require an ascertainment of its subjective intent. It argues that, since it was the compulsion of the antitrust decree, and not business policy, that resulted in the closing equipment being held for sale, capital gains treatment is warranted. We feel the Commissioner is on sounder ground in contending for an objective approach. Irrespective of motive or cause, the fact remains that in 1953 the taxpayer held the machines for sale as part of its ordinary trade or business. * * *
* * * The fact of its subjective preference for its former — now illegal — manner of operation is singularly immaterial here. * * * [American Can Company v. C.I.R., supra, 317 F.2d at 605-606]
The court went on to hold that plaintiff’s position was not sustainable in any event because of its insistence on conducting this phase of its business under the terms of the decree:
We hold note further that had the taxpayer been willing to divest itself of this line of its business, as was urged by the Antitrust Division, it would then have been entitled tc capital gains treatment without question. Instead, the taxpayer chose, as the better of undesirable alternatives, to enter a new business: the sale, as well as the rental, of closing equipment. Thus, even looking to the motive or cause of the machines being held for sale, we cannot hold for the taxpayer. * * * [Id. at 606]
As indicated, it is only sales of pre1951 machines to lessees-in-possession as of January 1, 1951, that plaintiff selects for special treatment. Plaintiff concedes that all other sales it made under its new sales program constitute ordinary income, and this would include even sales of pre-1951 machines provided they were not made to lessees-in-possession. It is plain, however, that these lessee-in-possession sales constituted only one segment of its newly adopted overall sales program. Pursuant thereto, and in accord[413]*413anee with the decree, plaintiff engaged in a comprehensive advertising program intended to inform its container customers who were then renting its machines that the machines were now available for sale at advantageous prices and terms. Plaintiff’s regular container sales organization was given the added responsibility of vigorously attempting to sell the machines to lessees and other prospective purchasers. Through these efforts over the five-year period 1951-1955 plaintiff was able to sell approximately thirteen million dollars in machinery to lessees-in-possession as of January 1, 1951 (upon which approximately five million dollars in net gains was realized).
That the decree-regulated prices of the pre-1951 machines at which lessees-in-possession were privileged to purchase were much lower than the prices of the identical machines manufactured after January 1, 1951, is again only another of the conditions upon which plaintiff, knowing that it had been in violation of the antitrust laws and that the decree was intended to compensate for the illegal activity that had been engaged in, chose to enter this new business.7 It is not surprising that, in prescribing formulae for maximum sale prices of the pre-1951 machines, the court obviously took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff’s customers had been paying for the machinery during the previous years through their “tie-in” purchase of cans. For this reason and in the setting herein involved, the fair market value, replacement and manufacturing costs, and the fact that, as an abstract proposition, the maximum formulae selling prices of the machines were less than such value and costs, are irrelevant. Furthermore, it is also obvious that the court concluded that those who had been paying for the machines over the years should be given priority to purchase them.8
Plaintiff distinguishes American Can on the grounds that that litigation covered not only pre-decree but also post-decree machinery, the treatment of which as ordinary income plaintiff does not contest, although American CanV did. This distinction is hardly meaningful. Insofar as the decision did cover predecree machines, it is, clearly, directly in point. The pre-decree machines were not an insignificant nor unnoticed segment of the litigation, the court specifically observing that “[m]ost of the machines sold during the taxable year [there in question] were manufactured before the antitrust decree * *. (Id. at 605)
Further minimizing American Can as authority, plaintiff points out that the court there, after reviewing the “impressive” number of machine sales the company made, and the intensity of its sales efforts, concluded that “[b]eyond question, American Can Company had a substantial purpose to sell its closing equipment.” (Id. at 605) Plaintiff correctly points out, however, that in using such “substantial purpose” language, the court relied on a construction of the statutory clause “held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business” as meaning that a purpose may be “primary” if it is only “substantial,” a doctrine which the Supreme Court rejected in Malat v. Riddell, supra. However although the Supreme Court in Malat specifically cited (383 U.S. n. 3, p. 571, 86 S.Ct. p. 1032) American Can [414]*414as one of the cases which had so erroneously interpreted “primarily,” it in no way intimated that American Can had been wrongly decided, i. e., that any different result would follow from the application of the proper test. Malat itself was an altogether different kind of case. It did not involve a taxpayer in two separate businesses, such as is plaintiff. There the taxpayer purchased and subsequently sold a parcel of land upon which it claimed capital gains treatment. The denial of such treatment resulted from a dispute between the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service as to the intended use of the parcel, the taxpayer claiming a purpose to hold and develop for a rental apartment project, and the Internal Revenue Service contending that the taxpayer had purchased and held the property either for such rental purpose or for the purpose of selling it, whichever turned out to be more profitable, and that since such possible sale constituted a “substantial” purpose of the holding, ordinary income treatment was justified. The district court had agreed with the Internal Revenue Service and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, held that “ ‘primarily’ means ‘of first importance’ or ‘principally’ ” and, without intimating “whether the result would be supportable on the facts of this case had the correct [legal standard] been applied,” remanded the case to the district court for such application. (Id. at 572, 86 S.Ct. at 1032)
As shown above, this court, in Recordak Corporation, in a setting of a two business selling-or-renting case, concluded that “primarily” only “invokes a contrast, not between selling and renting, but between selling in the ordinary course of business and selling outside of that normal course,” and that, in such a case, “the goods are held ‘primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of * * * trade or business’ because they are regularly offered for sale to customers as part of the normal operation of the enterprise.” (325 F.2d at 463, 163 Ct.Cl. at 300) Certainly here plaintiff, on a continuous day-to-day basis, and over the years, “regularly offered for sale to customers” the machines in question. Indeed, in Recordak Corporation, the court felt that the result in the “very close” (id.) two business sale- or-rent case of American Can (conformed with the “primarily” test it was applying in Recordak and was proper. The Supreme Court, in noting, as aforesaid, the various interpretations that had been given to “primarily,” including that in American Can, also noted (in the form of a “Cf.” following its citation of American Can) the Recordak Corporation decision without in any way intimating that the Recordak Corporation test was, in such type of two-business case, erroneous. Nor does plaintiff criticize Recordak Corporation in any manner. Instead, it merely contends that under the facts, the sales of the pre-1951 machines to the lessees-in-possession do not fall within the Recordak “mainstream” test. However, for the reasons set forth, the conclusion is compelled that they do.
And, just as the ordinary income result in the two business rent-or-sell Recordak Corporation situation is consistent with the “primarily” doctrine of Malat, so, as this court specifically held in Nadalin v. United States, supra, is there nothing inconsistent with Malat in the doctrine that ordinary income results from a change in the purpose of holding pursuant to which the property becomes devoted to a business purpose despite a long prior holding of a type that would have given rise to capital gains had such holding purpose persisted.
Finally, there surely is no merit to the contention that the sales in question were outside the “mainstream” of plaintiff’s business because such business should be considered as one of selling completed, sealed cans, the closing equipment thus in effect constituting but a part of the total manufacturing process and therefore to be properly classified as productive capital assets. Plaintiff never conducted its business operations in that manner. It always conducted the sealing operation as a separate business by charging rent for the closing equipment. [415]*415Thus additional income traditionally resulted from this phase of its operations (although it is true that prior to the decree, plaintiff looked to the sale of its containers for a complete recovery of cost and a realization of its profit on both the sale of the containers as well as the rental of the equipment).9 A manufacturer selling a completed product normally does not make a separate charge for an integral step in the productive process. Instead, all manufacturing costs are normally covered in the price of the completed product. All that happened here is that plaintiff’s separate leasing business was expanded to a sale- or-rent business. Income from the sale of the machines was thus certainly in the “mainstream" of the closing equipment business that plaintiff had always conducted. Unless this portion of its operations had the status of a separate business, and not merely a step in the alleged basic manufacturing process of producing completed cans, there would have been no point in everyone, including plaintiff, treating it as a separate activity subject to and capable of divestiture.
In view of all of the above considerations, plaintiff is not entitled to recover on this aspect of the case.
THE ALTERNATIVE EXCESS PROFITS TAX ISSUE
The determination by the Internal Revenue Service that the gains resulting from the sales of the closing equipment constituted ordinary income also had the effect of subjecting such gains to excess profits taxes under the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950 (§§ 430-474, Internal Revenue Code of 1939). That Act was not applicable to gains from sales or exchanges of capital assets. (§ 433(a) (D (C))
Plaintiff contends, however, that even if the gains herein involved are properly to be treated as ordinary income and therefore subject to the excess profits tax, they nevertheless constitute “abnormal income” within the meaning of section 456 of the 1939 Code, thus entitling plaintiff to the relief afforded by such section. Under this section the excess profits tax for a year in which such abnormal income is realized is computed by allocating a portion of such income to other years, i. e., the previous or future years to which the income is attributable.10 If such portions are al[416]*416tocable to years not subject to excess profits tax, the relief will, of course, be substantial. And even if the other years were excess profits tax years, benefits will accrue because excess profits credits will become applicable for more than one year.
Included in the statutory classifications of income defined as “abnormal income” is “Income arising out of a claim, award, judgment, or decree, or interest on any of the foregoing;” (§ 456(a) (2) (A)). Plaintiff contends that the gains from the sales of the closing equipment fall within this classification since they “resulted from the fact of the antitrust decree.” That decree, says plaintiff, by “terminating Continental’s policy of leasing closing equipment” and “forcing” the sales which resulted in the gains, was their producing cause. These gains therefore constitute, it contends, “income arising out of a * * * decree” within the meaning of section 456(a) (2) (A).11
Further, there is agreement that under section 456(b) 12 and the pertinent regulations,13 the abnormal income must [417]*417meet the additional requirement that it be attributable to other years. Plaintiff says the gain herein involved meets this requirement too because “such gain represents rental income Continental would have realized over a period of years had it not been for the effect of the antitrust decree.” This conclusion is supported, plaintiff argues, by the fact that one of the formulae adopted by the decree to arrive at the “maximum base” price of the closing equipment herein involved is ten times 1950 rental. Thus, says plaintiff, the effect of the decree was to take rental income that would have accrued to plaintiff over ten years and condense it all into the one year of the sale. Such income is accordingly claimed as properly attributable to the ten-year period 1951-1961 and, therefore, allocable to such years. Plaintiff emphasizes14 the language of Regulations 130, section 40.456-3(b) providing that “Items of net abnormal income are to be attributed to other years in the light of the events in which such items had their origin * * * ” 15 (the “origin” of the “events” herein involved being, presumably, the antitrust decree).
These alternative contentions are not acceptable. In a sense, the gain plaintiff realized could, of course, be said to result “from the fact of the antitrust decree.” [Emphasis supplied] In this sense, however, it could be said to have been realized from many “facts,” i. e., the “fact” of its corporate existence, or the “fact” that it was in the container business in the first place, or the “fact” that it had indulged in illegal activities prior to the decree. Clearly, however, this is not the sense in which the statute exempts “income arising out of a claim, award, judgment, or decree.” It seems plain that what is here referred to is moneys flowing from some kind of affirmative assertion of claim by the taxpayer, a claim that may have been successfully prosecuted and thus have taken the form of an “award,” a “judgment,” or a “decree,” all of which are common terms used to describe the final actions of judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in determining, after adjudicating a dispute, that a claimant is entitled to a certain sum of money. “Judgment” is, of course, the common term applicable to the final action of courts in proceedings to enforce rights and to determine amounts due. In certain actions, especially those of an equitable nature, or those determined by admiralty or probate courts, the final determination, including the requirement that a certain amount be paid by one party to another, may take the form of a “decree.” See National Surety Co. v. Mulligan, 105 N.J.L. 336, 146 A. 372 (1929) (involving a judgment type of decree of a surrogate’s court requiring the payment of a [418]*418certain sum by one party to another). An example of a decree under which monetary damages may be awarded is that which may be rendered in a patent infringement suit. “A patent owner ordinarily has his election to sue at law charging infringement and demanding damages, or he may seek an injunction, accounting and damages in equity.” Ryan Distributing Corporation v. Caley, 51 F.Supp. 377, 379 (E.D.Pa.1943), aff’d 147 F.2d 138 (3d Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 859, 65 S.Ct. 1199, 89 L.Ed. 1979.16 These determinations are also, of course, frequently denominated “awards,” and such “award” language is also commonly used in connection with arbitration proceedings. Thus, all the “claim, award, judgment, or decree” language involves terms customarily associated with an affirmative assertion of moneys due (a “claim”) and some formal determination thereof (an “award, judgment, or decree”). It seems plain that this was what the provisions herein involved, being addressed to “abnormal income” and income “attributable to other years,” meant, for it might, for instance, take many years to establish a claim based upon past events or contracts, and it was obviously felt that it would not be fair to throw the recovery into income subject to the excess profits tax if the litigation happened to be concluded in a year in which such a tax was in effect. See Bell Aircraft Corporation, 32 T.C. 355 (1959) (Court of Claims judgment allowing a recovery with respect to expenditures made in the performance in prior years of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts held to constitute “income arising out of a * * * judgment,” and which income was “attributable to other years”). Accordingly, “judgment” or “decree,” in the “claim, award, judgment, or decree” context could hardly encompass an antitrust “Final Judgment” such as is here involved, which had no purpose of adjudicating any monetary claim or demand that plaintiff was pressing but which instead “Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed” that plaintiff, as a defendant, cease its illegal practices and required it to make its closing equipment available for sale as well as for rent. The statutory classifications of “income” which are to be treated as “abnormal income” 17 in no way evidence an intention to convert “ordinary income” to “abnormal income” simply because the change in holding purpose which led to the establishment of the new “trade or business” came about in order to be in compliance with an antitrust judgment or decree.
In Yuba Gardens, Inc., 17 T.C. 334 (1951), moneys received by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of business were likewise refused “abnormal income” status since they were not received pursuant to a “claim” within the meaning of a similar excess profits tax act. There the taxpayer sold parcels of land under contracts which required payments to be made over the succeeding ten years. During the taxable year in question the taxpayer received, in addition to the regular installments, delinquent as well as accelerated payments. Because of the requirement that all of the unusually large amount of receipts be included in the taxpayer’s gross income in the year of receipt, it sought to have the payments considered as abnormal income arising out of a “claim” pursuant to the provisions of the predecessor of section 456. The Tax Court, however, denied the requested relief under the excess profits tax law, stating:
* * * Although it does not seem that Congress intended to restrict the meaning of the term “claim” to technical items such as litigated claims, it does appear that something more than an existing right is necessary to come within the intendment of the statute. Since the term is used in connection with “award, judgment, or decree,” it [419]*419appears that at the least the statute requires that there be a bona fide dispute or an asserted demand. [Emphasis supplied] (at 343)
Even as to the delinquent payments, the court noted that the taxpayer had never made any demands to enforce its contract rights but simply permitted the purchasers to make payments as they could.
Neither of the two cases plaintiff cites, Bell Aircraft Corporation, supra, and Triboro Coach Corporation, 29 T.C. 1274 (1958), in both of which “abnormal income” status was accorded the amounts in dispute, supports its position that an antitrust “judgment” or “decree” such as is here involved would fall within the terms of the section. Both cases involved money recoveries as a result of affirmative claims asserted and pressed by the taxpayer, Bell Aircraft involving, as stated, moneys received under a Court of Claims judgment, and Triboro Coach involving moneys ultimately received as a result of a dispute between a bus operator-taxpayer and New York City over the amount of a service charge to be allowed the bus company for the performance in prior years of certain functions (printing, selling, collecting and accounting) in connection with “combination” rides on the taxpayer’s and the city’s lines. In Triboro Coach, the Tax Court held the amounts so received by the taxpayer to constitute income “arising out of a claim,” stating:
It is clear from the testimony that Triboro was pressing a request for an increased allowance for the performance of the functions for which the service charge was provided. * * * There was at least a dispute or an asserted demand sufficient to constitute a “claim.” [Emphasis supplied] (at 1280)
Similar “abnormal income” was recovered by the taxpayer who pressed “asserted demands” in American Enka Corporation, 30 T.C. 684 (1958) (recovery of interest on tax over-assessments).
All of these cases illustrate what clearly appears to be the common understanding of “income arising out of a claim, award, judgment, or decree,” and support the conclusion tha£' plaintiff’s income arising out of sales of pre-1951 container-closing equipment to lessees-in-possession, made in compliance with the antitrust decree, does not qualify for relief under section 456.18
Additionally, even if plaintiff’s interpretation of the “decree” provision be considered proper, so that the gain herein involved could be treated as “abnormal income,” it seems plain that the gain nevertheless does not meet the “attributable to other years” requirement. The ground upon which plaintiff relies, i. e., that the antitrust judgment provided that the maximum “base” price of the pre-1951 machinery located at the lessee-canners’ plants should be ten times the 1950 rental, so that 'the gains therefore are properly attributable to the ten-year period 1951-1961, is not persuasive. The conversion into a lawful sales price of what would, under the old, illegal, system, have been rental income for ten future years could hardly be considered as producing; as a result of the sale, income “attributable” to such years. In the first place, when an article may be either rented or purchased, it would not seem unusual to have the sales price and the rental fee bear some kind of a ratio relationship. However, this does not make, in any real sense, the income from the sale any the less “attributable” only to the year of the sale, for both the sales price and the rental fee obviously stand on their own feet. Such sales income [420]*420could hardly be considered as attributable to the years which would hypothetically have produced rental income had the sales not been effected. It seems quite clear that what was intended to be covered were situations permitting more definite and precise “other year” income attributions, such as, for instance, the Bell Aircraft situation, where moneys due under completed contracts were not received until protracted litigation finally produced them in a later, but excess profits, tax year. In all of the above-cited cases allowing “abnormal income” relief, the attribution of the income to other years was based on some such similar factor. Secondly, in this particular instance it is all the more difficult to regard the sales price as “attributable” to the rental income which would have been produced over a ten-year period when it would have been illegal for plaintiff to have continued to rent the equipment during 1951-1960 on the old 1950 rental basis and method of doing business.19
For all of the reasons hereinabove set forth it is concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
The dissenting opinion of Skelton, Judge, in which Collins, Judge, and Nichols, Judge, join, follows the opinion of the trial commissioner which has been adopted by the court.