Exxon Corp. v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 347, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 755, 1985 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1063
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 29, 1985
DocketNo. 235-79T
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 7 Cl. Ct. 347 (Exxon Corp. 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
Exxon Corp. v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 347, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 755, 1985 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1063 (cc 1985).

Opinion

OPINION

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge.

Exxon Corporation sues for a refund of taxes and interest for a disallowed deduction on the 1960 consolidated income tax return of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) 1 and its subsidiary, Esso Export Corporation. Exxon claims that it was entitled to deduct $27,357,644 because of a debt in that amount owed by Esso Standard Oil S.A., or its Cuban division, to Esso Export Corporation. On August 6, 1960, the Cuban assets of Esso Standard Oil S.A. were nationalized by Fidel Castro and the debt was never repaid.

Facts

On New Year’s Day 1959, Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba, ousting the government of Fulgencio Batista. At that time, Esso Standard Oil S.A. (Essosa), a Panamanian corporation, was headquartered in Havana. Essosa was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) (Standard), and was in the business of refining and marketing petroleum products in 18 Caribbean countries. Operations in each country were conducted by a local division, each divisiqn having its own management, staff, assets, payroll and financial statements. The Havana headquarters coordinated the operations of Essosa’s divisions and provided certain managerial services. (For ease of reference, Figure 1 presents a chart of the Standard subsidiaries and divisions relevant to the issues here presented.)

[349]*349

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

Related

Centex Corp. v. United States
395 F.3d 1283 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Jeppsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
128 F.3d 1410 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)
Aerotron Grantor & Stockholder Trust v. Commissioner
1988 T.C. Memo. 556 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Exxon Corp. v. United States
12 Cl. Ct. 434 (Court of Claims, 1987)
Exxon Corporation v. The United States
785 F.2d 277 (Federal Circuit, 1986)
Beneficial Foundation, Inc. v. United States
8 Cl. Ct. 639 (Court of Claims, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Cl. Ct. 347, 55 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 755, 1985 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exxon-corp-v-united-states-cc-1985.