Industrial Rayon Corp. v. United States

155 F. Supp. 556, 140 Ct. Cl. 168, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 777, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 31
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 9, 1957
DocketNo. 351-53
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 155 F. Supp. 556 (Industrial Rayon 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
Industrial Rayon Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 556, 140 Ct. Cl. 168, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 777, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 31 (cc 1957).

Opinion

Littleton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit to recover interest alleged to have been erroneously assessed and collected on income and excess profits tax deficiencies for 1942 and 1943. Plaintiff also alleges a claim for additional interest due it on overassessment of excess profits tax for the year 1942.

Plaintiff’s petition sets forth five causes of action, two of which the parties have settled prior to argument and submission of the case. We therefore direct our attention to the remaining three causes of action.

The problem presented involves the interrelationship of the World War II excess profits tax and the relief and carry-back provisions provided against such tax as found in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.1 The facts as stipulated by the parties, briefly stated, are as follows:

The plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as “Rayon,” filed income and excess profits tax returns on a calendar year basis for 1942 to 1945, inclusive. For 1942 and 1943, Rayon deferred payment of a portion of its excess profits tax under the provisions of section 710 (a) (5).2 The amounts of [171]*171taxes so deferred were $1,416,350.32 and $849,639.05 respectively.

In filing its returns for 1942 and 1943, Rayon also filed applications for relief under section 722. Section 722 provided for the determination in certain circumstances of a constructive average base period net income (CABNI) to be used in place of an average base period net income for the purpose of imposing the excess profits tax. In the case of a taxpayer qualifying for a CABNI under section 722 there usually resulted a lessening of its tax liability.

On February 25, 1946, Rayon filed an application for tentative carryback adjustments from 1945 to the years 1941,1942,1943 and 1944. This application was based upon a claimed net operating loss for the year 1945 in the amount of $5,938,372.03 and an unused excess profits credit of $2,260,386.73.

An agreement between Rayon and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner, acting through the Excess Profits Tax Council, fixed plaintiff’s constructive average base period net income for all of the years 1942 through 1945 at $3,805,862. This agreement between Rayon and the Commissioner was entered into on May 5, 1947. The Council’s determination of a CABNI stated on its face that the CABNI was determined “for carry-back and carry-over purposes only.” Prior to May 5, 1947, plaintiff had on July 11, 1946, filed a claim for refund of excess profits tax for the year 1942, claiming that it was entitled to a refund of $2,255,358.20 in excess profits tax paid for that year. This claim for refund stated that the grounds for the refund were: (a) excess profits tax relief under section 722 for 1942, (b) an unused excess profits credit adjustment in 1942 resulting from excess profits relief under section 722 for 1943 and 1944, and (c) an unused excess profits credit adjustment in 1942 resulting from a net operating loss incurred in 1945.

The claim for refund referred to an internal revenue agent’s report on the tax liability of Rayon for the years 1940 through 1945. Although this report of the revenue agent was made prior to the agreement in May 1947 between the parties as to a CABNI for the purposes of section 722, [172]*172the CABNI used by tie revenue agent in Ms report was tbe same as later agreed upon and therefore was apparently adopted by both the plaintiff and the Commissioner.

The following adjustments were made to plaintiff’s net taxable income, excess profits net income and excess profits credit by the revenue agent’s report:

(a) increases and decreases in the amounts of income and deductions in each of the years 1942-1945, inclusive, called standard adjustments.
(b) recomputations of excess profits net income and excess profits credits pursuant to section 722 in each of the years 1942-1945, inclusive, using the constructive average base period net income of $3,805,862.
(c) allowances of net operating loss deductions in 1943 and 1944 arising from a net operating loss incurred in 1945 and carried back under applicable laws; and of unused excess profits credit adjustments in 1942 and 1943, arising in part from net operating loss deductions in other years.

The report showed no excess profits tax liability for any of the years 1942 through 1945, and disclosed an overassessment of excess profits tax for 1942 of $2,255,358.20 and a deficiency in income tax for that year of $1,694,081.27. For 1943, the report showed a net operating loss deduction of $5,870,073.22 resulting from the 1945 loss which was $902,-246.11 in excess of the 1943 net income.

On July 19, 1948, Eayon filed a waiver of restrictions on assessment and collection of the deficiencies in tax and acceptance of overassessment with respect to all of the years 1940 to 1945 inclusive. The report of the revenue agent was subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner and the deficiences were paid by the plaintiff and the overassessments were credited or refunded by the Commissioner.

On June 3, 1949, plaintiff received the following communication from the Commissioner:

You are advised that your excess profits tax liability for the taxable years ended December 31,1943 and 1944 is zero, and the tax assessed has previously been refunded as a result of tentative adjustments.
In making this determination the bases of your application for relief (Form 991) have not been considered for the reason that other adjustments affecting your excess profits tax result in eliminating all excess profits [173]*173tax assessed for the taxable years. Accordingly, it has been determined that to the extent your application constitutes a claim for refund, such applications should be rejected. In accordance with the requirements of section 732 of the Internal Revenue Code, notice is given of the disallowance of the claims for refund asserted in your applications for relief, and in related claims for refund (Form 843), filed December 27,1944 and May 5, 1947 for 1943, and May 5, 1947 for the year 1944.

After the final determination of Rayon’s income and excess profits tax liabilities, the Commissioner computed interest charges and credits pursuant to such determination. It is the amount of interest assessed and collected or credited and refunded for 1942 and 1943 which is now in issue. In order to more clearly illustrate the problems presented, we will take the years 1942 and 1943 separately and determine the issues therein presented.

For the year 1943, after the so-called standard adjustments had been made, but without taking into account any section 722 relief, loss, or unused credit adjustments, and without taking into account the 1943 excess profits tax deferred under section 710 (a) (5), the Commissioner determined that there was a deficiency in 1943 excess profits tax in the amount of $762,971.03. In computing interest charges for 1943, the Commissioner determined that (a) Rayon’s entire excess profits tax liability for 1943 was eliminated by the carry-back of its net operating loss from.

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

Related

Universal Pictures Company, Inc. v. United States
345 F.2d 1002 (Second Circuit, 1965)
Universal Pictures Co. v. United States
237 F. Supp. 169 (S.D. New York, 1964)
Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. v. United States
230 F. Supp. 518 (S.D. New York, 1964)
Time, Inc. v. United States
226 F. Supp. 680 (S.D. New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 F. Supp. 556, 140 Ct. Cl. 168, 52 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 777, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-rayon-corp-v-united-states-cc-1957.