Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States

14 Citing cases

  1. Utah Oil Refining Co. v. Hinckley

    121 F.2d 578 (10th Cir. 1941)   Cited 1 times

    Webster Company v. Commissioner, 37 B.T.A. 800; W. K. Holding Corporation v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 830; A.J. Crowhurst Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 1072; Del Mar Addition v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. 833, and Meco Production Company v. Commissioner, 41 B.T.A. 1344, May 8, 1940. Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, 23 F. Supp. 471; Allied Agents, Inc. v. United States, 26 F. Supp. 98, certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 561, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed. 471; Servel, Inc. v. United States (General Motors Corporation v. United States, United Motors Service, Inc. v. United States, decided together), 35 F. Supp. 466, certiorari denied, March 31, 1941, 61 S.Ct. 825, 85 L.Ed. ___. Midvale Paper Board Co., Inc. v. United States, 31 F. Supp. 851; Mountain Iron Co. v. United States, 31 F. Supp. 895; Isthmian S.S. Co. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 1007; Kentucky Fire Brick Co. v. Glenn, 34 F. Supp. 35; American Viscose Corporation v. Rothensies, 34 F. Supp. 217; Lake Terminal R. Co. v. United States, 34 F. Supp. 963; Stanolind Oil Gas Co. v. Jones, 34 F. Supp. 965; Stromberg-Carlson Mfg. Co. v. McGowan, 32 F. Supp. 101; Hornell Ice Cold Storage Co. v. United States, 32 F. Supp. 468; United States Steel Products Co. v. United States, 36 F. Supp. 368, and Liberty Paper Board Co., Inc. v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 751.

  2. American Viscose Corporation v. Rothensies

    121 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1941)   Cited 6 times

    We can find no decided case as authority for the contrary view contended for by the appellants. See Prime Securities Corp. v. United States, 6 Cir., 119 F.2d 939; Briggs-Darby Construction Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 89; Rochester Gas Electric Corporation v. McGowan, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 953; United States Steel Products Co. v. United States, D.C., 36 F. Supp. 368; Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 23 F. Supp. 471, certiorari denied 305 U.S. 628, 59 S.Ct. 92, 83 L.Ed. 402; Servel, Inc., v. United States, Ct.Cl., 35 F. Supp. 466, certiorari denied, March 31, 1941, United Motor Service v. United States, 61 S.Ct. 825, 85 L.Ed. ___; Stanolind Oil Gas Co. v. Jones, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 965; Lake Terminal R. Co. v. United States, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 963; Kentucky Fire Brick Co. v. Glenn, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 35; Isthmian S.S. Co. v. United States, D.C., 33 F. Supp. 1007; Hornell Ice Cold Storage Co. v. United States, D.C., 32 F. Supp. 468; Stromberg-Carlson Mfg. Co. v. McGowan, D.C., 32 F. Supp. 101; Mountain Iron Co. v. United States, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 895; Midvale Paper Board Co. v. United States, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 851; Rosoff Tunnel Corporation v. Higgins, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 880; Allied Agents v. United States, Ct.Cl., 26 F. Supp. 98, certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 561, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed. 471; Del Mar Addition v. Commissioner, 40 B.T.A. 833; A.J. Crowhurst Sons, Inc., v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 1072; W.

  3. Rochester Gas Electric Corp. v. McGowan

    115 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1940)   Cited 7 times

    The Court of Claims has passed upon it three times. Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, 23 F. Supp. 471; Allied Agents, Inc., v. United States, 26 F. Supp. 98; Tennessee Consolidated Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 542. There have been fourteen decisions in the district courts, besides those here on appeal.

  4. Del Mar Addition v. Commissioner

    113 F.2d 410 (5th Cir. 1940)   Cited 21 times
    In Del Mar Addition v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 113 F.2d 410, 411, the Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, said: 'In cases involving the question of whether a business entity is, for taxation purposes, a corporation * * * or a partnership * * *, and the entity does not conform to either definition entirely, the test applied is which of the two it more closely resembles.

    Our conclusion is that the delinquent filing of the return sufficiently met the requirements of the statute and is an adequate defense to the deficiency assessment for excess-profits taxes. Allied Agents v. United States, Ct.Cl., 26 F. Supp. 98; certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 561, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed. ___; Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 23 F. Supp. 471. Sections 105 and 106, supra, are companion sections inseparable in their conception, operation, and application.

  5. Blake & Kendall Co. v. Commissioner

    104 F.2d 679 (1st Cir. 1939)   Cited 2 times

    This language is plain, and it means what it says. Therefore the collector possesses no power to accept and file the amended return in lieu of the original return." In Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 23 F. Supp. 471, decided May 31, 1938, the court made no reference to the Scaife case, but reached the same conclusion. It is worthy of notice that the contemporaneous construction placed on the statute in the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was that the original declared value of the capital stock could not be changed, amended or corrected either by the corporation or by the Commissioner.

  6. Liberty Paper Bd. Co., Inc. v. United States

    37 F. Supp. 751 (S.D. Ohio 1941)   Cited 1 times

    Again referring to the statute, the self-adjusting principles of the two taxes insure a reasonable degree of uniformity and fairness between taxpayers. Allied Agents v. United States, Ct. Cl. 1939, 26 F.Supp. 98, certiorari denied, 1939, 308 U.S. 561, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed. 471; cf. Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, Ct. Cl. 1938, 23 F.Supp. 471, certiorari denied, 1938, 305 U.S. 628, 59 S.Ct. 92, 83 L.Ed. 402. It is impossible to adjust any system of taxation so as to render it precisely equal in application, and such uniformity is not even required of the States under the equal protection clause, much less of Congress under the general requirement of due process of law in taxation.

  7. In re Acme Traffic Signal Co.

    37 F. Supp. 352 (S.D. Cal. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    The purpose of establishing an irrevocable adjusted declaration of value by a corporate taxpayer as the basis of its capital stock tax is to protect the government from avoidance by the taxpayer of just capital stock taxes and the interrelated excess profits tax, as well. See Chicago Telephone Supply co. v. United States, Ct.Cl. 23 F.Supp. 471.         It is impossible for this bankrupt to avoid any taxes which it is reasonably obligated to pay under the indisputable facts shown by the record before us; therefore the reason for the rule of binding declared value is absent and the rule is inapplicable to this proceeding.

  8. Kentucky Fire Brick Co. v. Glenn

    34 F. Supp. 35 (W.D. Ky. 1940)   Cited 6 times

    Our attention has not been called to any decision holding the tax unconstitutional. In each of the following reported cases the Court has held the tax in question to be constitutional: Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 23 F.Supp. 471; Allied Agents, Inc., v. United States, Ct.Cl., 26 F.Supp. 98; Rosoff Tunnel Corp. v. Higgins, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 28 F.Supp. 880; Midvale Paper Board Co., Inc., v. United States, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 31 F.Supp. 851; Mountain Iron Co. v. United States, D.C., E.D.Minn., March 9, 1940, 31 F.Supp. 895; Stromberg-Carlson Mfg. Co. v. McGowan, Collector, D.C., W.D.N.Y., March 5, 1940, 32 F.Supp. 101. The various contentions advanced by the plaintiff in this action are also discussed and rejected by the opinions above referred to.

  9. Hornell Ice Cold Storage Co. v. United States

    32 F. Supp. 468 (W.D.N.Y. 1940)   Cited 9 times

    These statutes have been construed by the courts in numerous cases. So far as I am informed, upon the specific point raised here, these decisions are unanimously to the effect that the statutes are constitutional: Stromberg-Carlson Mfg. Co. v. McGowan, and other cases, D.C.W.D.N.Y., decided March 4, 1940, Burke, D.J., 32 F. Supp. 101; Allied Agents, Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 26 F. Supp. 98, certiorari denied October 9, 1939, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed. ___; Chicago Telephone Supply Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 23 F. Supp. 471, certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 628, 59 S.Ct. 92, 83 L. Ed. 402; Rosoff Tunnel Corp. v. Higgins, D.C., 28 F. Supp. 880; Midvale Paper Board Co., Inc. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., decided February 20, 1940, 31 F. Supp. 851; Haggar Co. v. Helvering, supra, and Oertel Co. v. Glenn, D.C., 13 F. Supp. 651, involved only the question of the timeliness of an amendment to the valuation. Scaife Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 3 Cir., 94 F.2d 664, certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 603, 59 S.Ct. 63, 83 L.Ed. 383, involved only the question of the right to maintain an action to enjoin a collector for refusing to accept an amended capital stock return.

  10. Mountain Iron Co. v. United States

    31 F. Supp. 895 (D. Minn. 1940)   Cited 9 times

    In such a case, there is `no necessity for a guide or a method for making a statement of fact by one who is in possession of full information with reference to the subject.'" Chicago Telephone Supply Company v. United States, Ct.Cl., 23 F. Supp. 471, 476. In the Allied Agents, Inc., case, supra, the constitutional questions raised here were considered by the Court of Claims, and in a well-reasoned and exhaustive opinion, that Court sustained the validity of the taxing statutes there involved (Sections 215 and 216 of the National Industrial Recovery Act; Sections 701 and 702 of the Revenue Act of 1934, and Sections 105 and 106 of the Revenue Act of 1935, as amended by Sections 401 and 402 of the Revenue Act of 1936).