Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LEE RUBBER & TIRE CORP v. UNITED STATES

February 26, 1943

LEE RUBBER & TIRE CORP
v.
UNITED STATES



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARD

This is an action for a refund of floor stocks taxes on cotton fabric owned by plaintiff on August 1, 1933. I make the following special findings of fact:

1. Plaintiff is engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of automobile tires, a constituent part of which is cotton fabric.

 2. On August 1, 1933 plaintiff was the owner of 543,441 pounds of cotton fabric on which it paid a tax of $24,029.06 under the floor stocks tax imposed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.

 3. After the Agricultural Adjustment Act was declared unconstitutional plaintiff duly filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue its claim for refund of the tax paid by it and on August 14, 1940 this claim was allowed in the amount of $4,312.84 and the balance was disallowed.

 4. The cotton fabric upon which the tax was paid was used by plaintiff in the manufacture of tires which plaintiff sold between the months of February and May 1934.

 5. Between August 1933 and February 1934 the plaintiff sold the tires which it had on hand on August 1, 1933.

 6. The amount of the tax upon the cotton fabric used in the manufacture of the average tire was approximately $ .2169.

 7. On June 8, 1933 plaintiff issued a price list establishing the prices at which its tires were to be sold.

 8. On July 27, 1933 plaintiff issued a new price list increasing its prices from those set forth in the June 8th price list by more than ten per cent.

 9. The amount per tire of the price increase of July 27, 1933 was in excess of the increased cost per tire due to the tax on the cotton fabric owned by plaintiff on August 1, 1933.

 10. Between February and May of 1934 plaintiff did not increase the net sales price of its tires over the prices in effect on August 1, 1933.

 11. During the two year period immediately prior to August 1, 1933 plaintiff's operating profit per tire was $ .15.

 12. During the period from August 1, 1933 to February 1, 1934 plaintiff's net operating ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.