Toledo Engineering Co. v. Commissioner

14 T.C. 765
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 5, 1950
DocketDocket No. 19520
StatusPublished

This text of 14 T.C. 765 (Toledo Engineering Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Toledo Engineering Co. v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 765 (tax 1950).

Opinion

OPINION.

Blace, Judge:

The sole issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner is entitled to relief under the provisions of section 721 of the Internal Revenue Code, the pertinent portions of which are printed in the margin.1

Petitioner contends that during the year 1943 it had net abnormal income of $110,205.26 of a special class from the construction of four new silicate bath type magnesium smelter furnaces and from two small moving and dismantling contracts connected therewith, which represents income from research and development of a process extending over a period of more than 12 months. Petitioner also contends that this net abnormal income is attributable to the years 1935 to 1943, inclusive, by reason of the expenses incurred in research and development of this process.

The respondent contends that the income received by petitioner from the contracts in question does not -come within the class set forth in section 721 (a) (2) (C) because (1) the research resulting in the development of the magnesium smelters did not extend over a period of more than 12 months, and (2) the petitioner has not demonstrated what portion of the income is the result of the use of the process and what portion is the result of other factors, such as manufacturing and installing the smelters:

Beginning in 1936, petitioner was actively engaged in original research, which ultimately led to the development of the process for smelting magnesium, as a result of which petitioner realized income which was abnormal in class within the meaning of section 721 (a) (2) (C) of the Internal Revenue Code. As early as 1941 petitioner designed an electric kiln which embodied for the first time the practical application of the process of using the silicate bath for general heating purposes. This was a result of the time, effort, and money spent in the preliminary research prior to 1941. The early research of petitioner represents the first steps in the development of the process of smelting magnesium by means of a molten silicate bath.

Respondent’s contention that petitioner’s research did not extend over a period of more than 12 months can not stand because the evidence shows that the process from which petitioner received income in 1943 relates back to research begun in 1936.

We have found that petitioner realized net abnormal income in the amount of $110,205.26 during the year 1943. However, petitioner’s right to relief under section 721 is also dependent upon its ability to show that such net abnormal income is attributable to other years and to what extent. W. B. Knight Machinery Co., 6 T. C. 519; Geyer, Cornell & Newell, Inc., 6 T. C. 96.

Section 35.721-3 of respondent’s Regulations 112 which deals with this question provides, in part, as printed in the margin.2

As as already been stated, it is respondent’s contention that none of the net abnormal income can be attributed to other years because “the petitioner has not demonstrated what portion of the income is the result of the use of the process and what portion is the result of other factors such as manufacturing and installing the smelters.” In making this contention the Commissioner seems to rely on that part of his regulations printed in the margin which reads:

* * * To the extent that any items of net abnormal income in the taxable year are the result of high prices, low operating costs, or increased physical volume of sales due to increased demand for or decreased competition in the type of products sold by the taxpayer, such items shall not be attributed to other taxable years. * * *

Petitioner argues, and correctly so we think, that the $55,195.43 renegotiation settlement with the Government out of the profits received from these three contracts takes care of the factor of high prices which is mentioned in the foregoing quoted regulation. Petitioner deducted this $55,195.43 from the $165,400.69 total net income derived from the three contracts here in question in arriving at the net abnormal income whiéh it claims should be attributed to the years of research and development. This, we think, adequately takes care of the factor of high prices. This leaves $110,205.26 net abnormal income which petitioner contends should be attributed to the years including the taxable year 1943, when research and development expenses took place.

The petitioner next argues that the factor of low operating costs as mentioned in the regulations is not present in the instant case because the facts show that the operating costs connected with the performance of these contracts were normal for the year in which they were performed and that there was not present any factor of low operating costs. We think that the evidence establishes this to be true, and we so hold.

Petitioner next contends that, under the facts which we have in the instant case, the clause of the regulations which speaks of the effect to be given to the factors of “increased physical volume of sales due to increased demand for or decreased competition in the type of product sold by the taxpayer” is not applicable here. Petitioner submits that it is not engaged in a manufacturing business; that it sells services to its customers; that what it did in the taxable year under the main contract was to construct four magnesium smelting furnaces for the Ford Motor Co. and that the other two contracts were dismantling contacts incident thereto; and that the “improvement in business conditions” clause of the regulations is not applicable.

Respondent, on his part, argues in his brief that:

* * * The idea of submerging an iron retort in silicate was used as the basis for the construction of the furnaces but in their design and construction, petitioner undoubtedly employed draftsmen, engineers, laborers, etc. The service performed by these persons was a thing of value and a portion of the income from the furnaces should have been compensation for it. To the extent that the income is the result of these factors, it is not abnormal income within the meaning of section Y21 (a) (2) (C). Ramsey Accessories Manufacturing Corporation, supra. * * *

It seems to us that, under the facts of the instant case, Ramsey Accessories Manufacturing Corporation, 10 T. C. 482, which was, as its name implies, a manufacturing corporation, is not applicable. Here, the petitioner did not increase its plant facilities, it had no plant; it did not increase its capacity, because it was not in the manufacturing business; it did not acquire a new customer, it had serviced Ford since 1917; and it did not increase its sales force, for the sales contracts were made by the three owners of the petitioner, who had always acted in that capacity. Petitioner did not use another’s patents; on the contrary, it was able to earn the $110,205.26 in question because it had at last been able to commercialize on a process which it had developed over a period of several years and which reached its fruition in the taxable year 1943 and was largely due to the personal services and ability of its engineers. These same three men were its officers and stockholders and the directing force of the business.

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

Related

Ramsey Accessories Mfg. Corp. v. Commissioner
10 T.C. 482 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Keystone Brass Works v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 618 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
W. B. Knight Machinery Co. v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 519 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Geyer, Cornell & Newell, Inc. v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 96 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 T.C. 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toledo-engineering-co-v-commissioner-tax-1950.