Case law

Kingston S.S. Corp. v. Renegotiation Board

46 T.C. 288 · United States Tax Court · May 24, 1966

District Court, 'Southern District of New York, in United States v. Rockland Steamship Corporation, 218 F. … Grob Brothers v. Secretary of War, 9 T.C. 495, 500 . Section 102(a) of the Renegotiation Act of 1951, as amended, 50 U.S.C.

Armstrong v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

15 T.C. 625 · United States Tax Court · Nov 15, 1950

question as to meaning of subcontract and tbe length to which renegotiation was intended to go was considered (though the case does not primarily involve the particular language here in question) in Providence Wool Combing Co. v. … the first day of the fourth month following the month in which such date of enactment falls), a financial statement setting forth such information as the Board may by regulations prescribe as necessary to carry •out this

Buck v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

10 T.C. 623 · United States Tax Court · Apr 15, 1948

No review by the Board of this determination having been requested and the Board not having initiated review on its own motion, the Board on January 15, 1946, by registered mail, mailed to petitioner notice of its determination … See Helvering v. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 306 U. S. 110 .

Council for Educ. v. Comm'r

106 T.C.M. 669 · United States Tax Court · Dec 16, 2013

See Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding the Court of Appeals’ earlier opinion Coal. for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). II. … Prominent among petitioner’s shortcomings are the lack of a formal business plan and an independent board of directors to provide operational guidance and oversight.14 See P.L.L. Scholarship Fund v.

North American Aviation, Inc. v. Renegotiation Board

39 T.C. 207 · United States Tax Court · Oct 25, 1962

Warner v. War Contracts Price Adjust. Board, 14 T.C. 1320 , and United States v. Warsaw Elevator Co., 213 F. 2d 517 . … Here, as in Boeing Co. v. Renegotiation Board, 37 T.C. 613 , respondent’s primary contention is that petitioner’s profits are excessive because they constitute an unreasonable return on book net worth.

Brady v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

11 T.C. 280 · United States Tax Court · Sep 15, 1948

In Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. … J. 825; Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U. S. 506 ; and American Coast Line, Inc., 6 T. C. 67, 73 ; affd., 159 Fed. (2d) 665.

Transducer Patents Co. v. Renegotiation Board

58 T.C. 329 · United States Tax Court · May 18, 1972

Cromwell v. … See, e.g., Gayler v. Wilder, 51 U.S. 501 ; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205 ; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U.S. 152 ; Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U.S. 252 ; E. W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 253 U.S. 187 ; Crown, Co. v.

French v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

13 T.C. 276 · United States Tax Court · Aug 29, 1949

The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence that the determination by the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board of the amount of excessive profits received by him in 1943 was erroneous. … s renegotiable profits from commissions received from his principals on sales to the Supply Department of the Navy during 1943 were excessive in the amount of $29,910, as determined by the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co. v. Renegotiation Board

35 T.C. 438 · United States Tax Court · Dec 23, 1960

Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 470 (1900); Rigby v. Rasmussen, 275 F. 2d 861, 863 (C.A. 10, 1960). … Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375, 378 (1931) ; Commissioner v. South Texas Co., 333 U.S. 496, 501 (1948).

Brown v. Comm'r

111 T.C.M. 1372 · United States Tax Court · Apr 28, 2016

BROWN AND MARY BROWN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 19738-14L. Filed April 28, 2016. Steven R. Mather, for petitioners. … See Hoyle v.

Beeley v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

12 T.C. 61 · United States Tax Court · Jan 27, 1949

This proceeding was heard and petitioners’ brief was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742 . … It was not involved under the facts in the three cases which were before the Supreme Court in Lichter v. United States, supra.

Gale v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

19 T.C. 1107 · United States Tax Court · Mar 24, 1953

Congress created the' War Contracts Price Adjustment Board for the express purpose of making such determinations as the respondent has here made. … Mere incorporation of renegotiable profits in the consideration to be paid for a contract which might not fall within the Act is not sufficient to place such profits beyond the reach of the Board.

Braden v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

11 T.C. 71 · United States Tax Court · Jul 21, 1948

North American Aviation, Inc. v. Renegotiation Board

36 T.C. 575 · United States Tax Court · Jun 27, 1961

List & Clark Constr. Co. v. Renegotiation Board

35 T.C. 823 · United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 1961

The minutes of the Eenegotiation Board show that on March 15, 1955, the Board denied the request of the petitioner for exemption of this prime contract, as modified. … To the extent the Board’s action related to this point we are without authority to review it. The cases cited by the petitioner, Vaughn Machinery Co. v. Renegotiation Board, 30 T.C. 949 , and Golbert v.

Grant v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

4 T.C. 1167 · United States Tax Court · Apr 20, 1945

The authority of the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board to renegotiate contracts and eliminate excessive profits is restricted to taxable years beginning after June 30, 1943. 1 That Board did not make the determination … The Court has provided in Rule 64 that the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board shall be shown as respondent in proceedings where the determination has been made by that Board, while in other proceedings where the determination

Trace v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

21 T.C. 303 · United States Tax Court · Nov 27, 1953

If the statutes upon which our jurisdiction rests are not complied with, we lose jurisdiction, e. g., Hill Machine Co. v. Secretary of War, 4 T. C. 922 ; Iverson & Laux, Inc. v. Secretary of Navy, 6 T. C. 247 . … In reaching our conclusion we are not unmindful of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Chairman of United States Maritime Commission v.

Fine v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

9 T.C. 600 · United States Tax Court · Oct 7, 1947

The War Contracts Price Adjustment Board adopted the determination as its determination. … See also Iverson & Laux, Inc. v. James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, 6 T. C. 247 .

Brown v. Commissioner

36 T.C.M. 77 · United States Tax Court · Jan 24, 1977

JAMES BROWN and PHYLLIS BROWN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. CARL HAAB and JOAN HAAB, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Brown v. … James Brown and Carl Haab became acquainted in the early 1960's, when both boarded horses at the same farm in Bremen, Indiana.

Golbert v. Renegotiation Board

28 T.C. 728 · United States Tax Court · Jun 27, 1957

Nathan Cohen v. Secretary of War, 7 T. C. 1002 ; Aircraft Screw Products Co., 8 T. C. 1037, 1044 ; Edell v. United States, 28 T. C. 601 . In A. P. Dowell, Jr. v. Forrestal, 13 T. … United, States v. Silk, 331 U. S. 704 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111 .