Midvale Co. v. United States

138 F. Supp. 269, 133 Ct. Cl. 881, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 142, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 15, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 66,084
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 31, 1956
DocketNo. 643-53
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 138 F. Supp. 269 (Midvale 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
Midvale Co. v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 269, 133 Ct. Cl. 881, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 142, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 15, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 66,084 (cc 1956).

Opinion

Littleton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff sued to recover $624,922.52, with interest, representing excess profits tax and deficiency interest for the years 1940-1945, inclusive, (The Midvale Company v. United States, 129 C. Cls. 483). The plaintiff contended that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue erroneously computed its excess profits credit under section Ill (b) (1) of the Excess Profits Tax of 1940, as amended (26 U. S. C. 110-184, note 1946 ed.; repealed November 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 568), because the Commissioner erroneously reduced its base period net income by excluding certain amounts received in those years but subsequently repaid to the Government under the Vinson-Trammell Act (48 Stat. 503, 505, as amended, 34 U. S. C. 496, 1940 ed.). The plaintiff contended that the income to be used was that shown on the returns for those years, with certain adjustments which did not include an adjustment excluding Vinson Act excessive profits.

This court, in its opinion on October 5,1954, held that the Vinson Act excessive profits should be excluded from the base period years because section Ill (b) (1) required the use of the correct income for the base period years, regardless of what was shown on the return, in the computation of the excess profits credit. We held that the allowance of the tax .credit on the money repaid under the Vinson Act automatically and retroactively reduced the income previously reported. In computing this credit the Commissioner determined the amount of taxes paid on the excessive profits in the base period years on the basis of the completed contract method, whereas the plaintiff had reported the income on the percentage of completion method. This was erroneous. In order to ascertain the correct income for the base period years and therefore the proper excess profits credit, judgment was suspended pending the filing of a stipulation showing the correct computation of the plaintiff’s income for the base period years, or upon the failure of such stipulation then the case was to be remanded to a commissioner of this court. The case was subsequently remanded.

[883]*883The commissioner of this court submitted his report with alternative computations. The alternative computations arise as a result of an error made by a revenue agent in the audit made in 1943, in failing to correctly compute the plaintiff’s Declared Value Excess Profits (D. V. E. P.) taxes for the base period years. Two revenue agents made audits and reports on plaintiff’s claims for refund. In the first report the revenue agent did not exclude the Vinson Act excessive profits and determined plaintiff’s D. V. E. P. taxes for the base period years on that basis. In the second report another revenue agent excluded the excessive profits but used substantially the same D. V. E. P. taxes, which is conceded by defendant to have been incorrect. Since the D. V. E. P. taxes are a deduction from income in determining the excess profits net income, plaintiff’s excess profits net income was understated in the base period years by this error.

The defendant contends, however, that this court lacks jurisdiction to award plaintiff anything in this case because plaintiff’s claims for refund do not specifically set forth, as a ground for recovery, that the Commissioner erroneously used the completed contract method in determining the Vinson Act excessive profits tax credit. The defendant further contends that the revenue agent’s error cannot be corrected because plaintiff’s claims for refund do not specifically set forth the error as a ground for recovery.

We think that both contentions of defendant are without merit. It is undisputed that a taxpayer cannot recover in court on a ground different from that asserted in the claim for refund, unless there is some action of the Commissioner which amounts to a waiver or estoppel. The plaintiff’s claim for refund, inter alia, stated:

The Internal Eevenue Bureau has erroneously determined this taxpayer’s excess profits tax payable in the amount stated in Item 6, Form 843, by failing to compute correctly its excess profits tax credit based on its average base period net income.
In the determination of this taxpayer’s average base period net income for the years 1936 to 1939, inclusive, the Internal Eevenue Bureau has erroneously and illegally reduced the same by the following payments which this taxpayer made to the U. S. Treasury Department under the Vinson Act: * * *

[884]*884The above statements, along with the detail furnished in the claims for refund,- are sufficient to support the refunds in this case, which are predicated on the ground that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue erroneously computed plaintiff’s excess profits credit because of his incorrect treatment of the repayments of the Vinson Act excessive profits. Both errors of the Commissioner are covered generally in the grounds set forth in the claims for refund and are directly related to the specific issue of whether the excessive profits should be included or excluded from the base period years.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts set forth in Table VIII in finding 8, less the amounts shown in Table IX of that finding.

Judgment will be entered for plaintiff for overpayment of excess profits taxes and deficiency interest, less the income tax deficiencies, as follows: For 1940, $7,848.36 and $4,133.26; for 1941, $13,494.74 and $6,297.19, less $4,039.73; for 1942, $18,212.81 and $6,970.77, less $8,811.15; for 1943, $35,685.16 and $5,935.16, less $17,622.30, and for 1944, $37,667.67 and $4,004.83, less $17,622.30, with appropriate interest as provided by law on the respective amounts.

It is so ordered.

Laramqre, Judge; Maddek, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; and JoNes, Chief Judge, concur.

FINDINGS OE PACT

The court, having considered the evidence, the briefs and argument of counsel, and the report of Commissioner Roald A. Hogenson, makes the following findings of fact:

1. The court, in its decision of October 5, 1954, held that plaintiff’s income for the base period years 1936-1939 should not include, for purposes of determining its excess profits net income, excess profits under the Vinson-Trammell Act but suspended the entry of judgment and remanded the case pending the filing of a stipulation showing the proper allocation of the Vinson Act excess profits over the years that the income and expenses on the contracts involved in the litigation were reported and the correct computation of the [885]*885income for the base period years as indicated in the opinion, or in the event the parties were unable to stipulate, then the establishment of such income by proof before a commissioner.

2.The defendant has redetermined the Vinson Act excess profits of the base period years 1936-1989 on the basis of the percentage-of-contract-completion method of accounting, as directed by the court. A comparison of the Vinson Act excess profits under the completed contract method and the percentage of completion method, and the adjustment of net-income which should be made under the court’s decision in that regard appear in the following table:

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

Related

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States
39 Fed. Cl. 197 (Federal Claims, 1997)
Commercial Solvents Corporation v. The United States
427 F.2d 749 (Court of Claims, 1970)
National Newark & Essex Bank v. United States
410 F.2d 789 (Court of Claims, 1969)
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. The United States
389 F.2d 437 (Court of Claims, 1968)
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation v. United States
342 F.2d 943 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)
RED RIVER LUMBER COMPANY v. United States
139 F. Supp. 148 (Court of Claims, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 F. Supp. 269, 133 Ct. Cl. 881, 49 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 142, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 15, 2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 66,084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midvale-co-v-united-states-cc-1956.