United States v. Koppers Co.

130 Ct. Cl. 829, 126 Ct. Cl. 847
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 31, 1955
DocketNo. 78-52
StatusPublished

This text of 130 Ct. Cl. 829 (United States v. Koppers Co.) 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
United States v. Koppers Co., 130 Ct. Cl. 829, 126 Ct. Cl. 847 (cc 1955).

Opinion

On writ of certiorari (347 U. S. 965) to review a judgment of the United States Court of Claims that where plaintiff [830]*830sues to recover the amount of interest collected and paid on potential excess profits tax deficiencies for the years 1940 and 1941, plaintiff was entitled to recover.

The judgment of the United States Court of Claims (Supreme Court No. 29) was reversed by the Supreme Court January 31, 1955, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Burton, which affirmed (Supreme Court No. 41) the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Premier Oil Refining Company of Texas v. United States, 209 F. 2d 692; certiorari granted 346 U. S. 987.

The syllabus of the Supreme Court opinion is as follows:

For the years 1940 through 1945, abatements of federal excess profits taxes, through application of § 722 of the Internal Kevenue Code, are not retroactive; and they relieve taxpayers from the payment of interest on deficiencies in such taxes only from the time of the abate-ments, rather than from the original due dates of the taxes abated.
1. This conclusion is supported by a consideration of the statutory scheme as a whole.
2. The interest here involved is attributable to I. R. C., § 292 (a), and ran from the original due date of the tax.
3. I. R. C., §710 (a) (5), added in 1942, permits a taxpayer, seeking relief under § 722, to defer a part of its existing excess profits taxes where its adjusted excess profits net income exceeds 50% of its normal tax net income. This 1942 amendment, by its restrictions, fairly means that, under all other circumstances, the existing taxes were to be paid when due, or be subjected to interest during their delinquency under §292 (a).
4. The denial of interest on refunds is prescribed by I. R. C., § 3771 (g); and equity demands a comparable result in the case of underpayments.
5. The conclusion here reached is supported by the legislative history and administrative interpretation of § 722 and is consistent in principle with Manning v. Seely Tube & Box Co., 338 U. S. 561.

Mr. Justice BurtoN

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue in these cases is whether, for the years 1940 through 1945, abatements of federal excess profits taxes, through application of I. R. C., § 722, are retroactive. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that they are [831]*831not and that they relieve taxpayers from the payment of interest on deficiencies in such taxes from the time of the abatement, rather than from the original due dates of the taxes abated.
In No. 29, United States v. Koffers Co., the taxpayer, respondent therein, reported and paid excess profits taxes of $6,512.76 for 1940, and $1,781,288.14 for 1941. In computing these taxes, it used excess profits credits based upon invested capital. In 1943 and 1945, it applied under § 722 for relief from all or part of these taxes, claiming that they were “excessive and discriminatory.” In accordance with the usual administrative practice, the Commissioner determined the amount of the excess profits taxes due without regard to the application for relief under § 722. In doing so, he found it necessary to proceed under I. R. C., §713, using excess profits credits based upon the taxpayer’s income, rather than upon its invested capital. As a result he found that the above taxes, as returned and paid by the taxpayer without reference to § 722, had been understated and that the following deficiencies existed as of their original due dates, March 15,1941, and 1942:
19Í0 19Í1
Excess profits tax under .§§ 710 (a) and 713_ $466, 921. 67 $2,208,019.09
Payments _ 6,512.76 1,781,288.14
Deficiencies- 460,408.91 426,730. 95
The Commissioner computed interest, at 6% on the above deficiencies, amounting to $217,376.07 for 1940, and $230,504.86 for 1941.
After extended investigations and negotiations conducted under authority of § 722, the Commissioner and the taxpayer agreed upon a “constructive average base period net income” which fixed the excess profits credits for the years in question and, as a result, the relief available under § 722. After this agreement was approved by the Excess Profits Tax Council of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner determined that the above-stated deficiencies, with the benefit of § 722, should be reduced to $260,554.39 for 1940, and to $95,749.33 for 1941. The taxpayer consented to the assessment of these deficiencies, with interest as provided by law. Whereupon, the Commissioner issued a formal determination of them and assessed them against the taxpayer. He also assessed the above-stated interest charges, based upon the full amount of the original deficiencies.
[832]*832The taxpayer paid the deficiencies and interest so assessed but claimed refunds of $94,358.71 for 1940, and $178,784.48 for 1941. Those sums represented the interest on the abatements in its excess profits taxes made under § 722. When the Commissioner disallowed the claims, the taxpayer sued in the Court of Claims to recover their amounts. With one judge dissenting, that court deducted a set-off and rendered judgment in favor of the taxpayer for $270,216.34. 126 Ct. Cl. 847, 117 F. Supp. 181. To resolve the resulting conflict with United States v. Premier Oil Co., 209 F. 2d 692, we granted certiorari, 347 U. S. 965.
In No. 41, Premier Oil Co. v. United States, the taxpayer, petitioner therein, paid the excess profits taxes shown on its original returns in the following amounts: for 1943, $564,167.70 (adjusted to $560,484.84); for 1944, $353,292.15 (adjusted to $313,639.13); and for 1945, $45,679.67. Thereafter, several deductions which the taxpayer had made from its income were disallowed, resulting, in 1948, in the following deficiencies in its payment of its excess profits and income taxes as of their original due dates:
DefioieNcies Without the Application of § 722

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

Related

Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co.
338 U.S. 561 (Supreme Court, 1950)
United States v. Premier Oil Refining Co. Of Texas
209 F.2d 692 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)
Koppers Co. v. United States
117 F. Supp. 181 (Court of Claims, 1953)
Premium Oil Refining Co. of Texas v. United States
107 F. Supp. 837 (N.D. Texas, 1952)
Premier Oil Refining Co. v. United States
347 U.S. 987 (Supreme Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 Ct. Cl. 829, 126 Ct. Cl. 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-koppers-co-cc-1955.