*1 Dutton, Indianapolis, Ind., C. B. at- torney record, plaintiff. L. M. TARZIAN, INC. SARKES Ponder, Dutton, Kappes Overman, & v. Barnes, Hickam, Boyd, Pantzer & In- The UNITED STATES. dianapolis, Ind., of counsel. No. 38-62. Washington, Rubloff, C., Gilbert W. D. Claims. Court of United States Atty. with whom Asst. Gen. Johnnie Walters, Philip July 16, M. R. defendant. Miller, Washington, C.,D. of counsel. COWEN, Judge, Before Chief LARAMORE, DAVIS, DURFEE, COL- LINS, SKELTON, NICHOLS, Judges.
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was Trial Com- referred George missioner Willi with directions findings to make of fact and recommend- ation for conclusions law under the 57(a). order of reference and Rule opinion commissioner has so in done report July filed on 1968. Plain- except tiff did not to the commissioner’s recommended conclusion of did law but except findings to certain of his quested findings. additional Defendant disagreed with some of the commission- legal conclusions, requested er’s that the adopt findings court made requested commissioner and additional findings by the court. The case has been submitted to court oral ar- gument of counsel and the briefs parties. In connection with the trial commis- 4220(2) sioner’s discussion of section (§ 3442(2) the 1954 Code of the 1939 Code), “Exemption for Sales Resales Manufacturers,” the court confines opinion go no further than the us, ease before him e., before i. (the tube) case in which the article un- dergoes physical change or functional being plugged reason of into the tuner (see finding 26). base We do now us, consider, have before and do not applicability statutory provision of that changed to an article which is or worked upon by prior being the vendee resold “in due course.” agrees Since the court with the com findings opinion, missioner’s and recom *2 law, parts purchasing component mak- in hereinafter used of as conclusion mended imposed same, it, on such adopts hereby tax is forth, it set components. Moreover, above, excise tax together as basis with the Therefore, already imposed of on been judgment has components this case.* its judgment stage in the plaintiff, earlier with at an is entered distribution, recovery of manufacture chain of determined be the amount imposition total 47(c) on the another tax of pursuant and defendant’s Rule price product results not the end sales of dismissed. counterclaim is taxing only such com- of value taxing, ponents time but as a second COMMISSIONER OPINION OF imposed well, the of tax earlier amount multiple taxation on them. is this WILLI, Commissioner: tax, compounding of called and resultant refund of suit for This is always Congress “pyramiding,” that has imposed that were excise taxes turers’ sought by and avoid condemned against plain- deficiency by assessments adoption mitigating provisions of purchased in- on tubes that tiff this case. those the forefront of suppliers tele- dependent for use in the defending suit, the Govern- made sold and tuners vision that acknowledges candidly if re- ment that entertainment-type of manufacturers covery denied, is double taxation receiving sets. television position tuner result. tubes will Its bought Both the tubes simply present here do not the facts into which the television sets effectuating aimed at fit compo- way ultimately found Congress’ policy preventing announced sold, were nents pyramiding. Furthermore, the Govern- throughout period in posi- ment asserts correctness of August through suit; October by the al- tion is reinforced fact though legislated Congress 1955 to Though by tubes prospectively relieve the dilemma is, first them in the who manufactures here, which itself finds has statute, instance, event a taxable made consistently grant refused such relief complementary mit- Code prior periods. liability depending igate point, at that Plaintiff, disputes course, the above upon the otherwise the use which propositions variety advances buyer. put tubes theories, legal equitable, seen, purpose of related will be these prevail. which it should Because it is statutory provisions prevention is the concluded plaintiff’s on one these theories pyramiding; imposition suc- well-taken cessive excise on the taxes same remainder, law, matter of with the passes through hands en several exception question of a limitations will part route to its final destination as dealt herein. with of a manufactured end discussing legal dispositive Before product that is itself taxable statute. issues, summary a brief of the factual clearly potential case This illustrates a context inis order. pyramiding situation. Here we have Though plaintiff engaged in vari- eventually be- ous activities related the communica- set. come a of a taxable television industry, tions this suit concerns ad valorem on the set operations supplier aas price it is measured for which various television set manufacturers. by the To the set manufacturer. selling price receiving extent All reflects the set’s commercial television sets separately in include costs the manufacturer incurred constructed * NICHOLS, concurring opinion adopted commissioner been Judge, opinion the trial the court. follows the Alignment by simulating tuning the con- for sound is done mechanism identifiable op- comprised number under which tuner will picture. of a ditions It is wiring mounted erate in a television simula- parts set. This individual gener- requires passage particular or base on metal frame industry signals through as a chas- electrical tuner. ally in the referred to *3 parts are cir- principal in tuner Since tubes form a of the a The sis. cuitry through signals amplifier, (radio frequency) which the must RF addition, align pass, impossible a tuner mixer, is to an oscillator. and tubes, complement coils, condensers, and without its full tubes. there are circuitry. Because the set manufacturers are associated buying in tuners interested that that Functionally, tuner is television already supplied aligned, been the tuners accepts the portion of the receiver plaintiff, customarily vendors, such as signals picture from sound and desired complete include a installed tubes. set processes system and connected antenna amplified in- and them into a standard the manufacturers’ excise output of frequency. termediate aspect operations, plaintiff of its tuner perceptible neither television essentially handled affairs in the fol- its picture nor because carrier sound lowing manner. picture wave on which the sound February 1955, Until first re- through signals at- transmitted are contrary ceived a indication from In- point mosphere, been ternal Revenue in Service the course dissipated. Demodula- dissociated audit, plaintiff a routine field assumed (separation of the tion and elimination tuners were its taxable as the wave) accomplished in tele- carrier Code, “chassis” referred in sec- separate equipment vision receivers 3404,1 Code, tion and later in 1954 sec- output tuner. receives 4142, defining “television the economies In order to realize components” including Op- “chassis.” industry production, mass is usual erating assumption, plaintiff under this practice for television set manufacturers purchased requirements its tube on a purchase suppliers, such doing, basis. so it issued its plaintiff, than to manufacture rather suppliers exemption tube certificates them themselves. type by regulations authorized issued pursuant essentially to the identical 1939 assembly step in line final and 1954 Code which author- of television tuners is or- ize a maunfacturer of taxable articles alignment, dinarily e., proc- that of i. components include or contain adjustments minor are ess such are themselves necessary to correlate each of the various components basis; on a tax-free sections positions fixed the tuner selector 3442(1) 4220(1), respectively. By reception particu- switch with the certificates, assured (or channel) frequency lar station suppliers purchased the tubes tax- synchro- properly which it relates and to free from them would signals be used it as nize the audio related video setting component part station on article, each the selector. aof imposed upon phonographs, “There shall be the fol and combinations of * * * lowing (including case, foregoing. each except instruments, “(b) Chassis, cabinets, tubes, speakers, in the case of musical parts amplifiers, power supply units, or accessories therefor sold on or antennae thereof) type, phonograph in connection with the sale the ‘built-in’ manufacturer, producer, mechanisms, im which are suitable for use porter equivalent per with, a tax to 10 centum on or in connection or as price parts of, any which sold: of the articles enumerated “(a) receiving sets, (a), pri- Radio automobile subsection whether or not ” * * * receiving sets, receiving marily adapted radio television for such use. sets, receiving sets, automobile television undisputed plaintiff’s filing The situation as to tuner. e., i. buy tube re- federal returns and the Gov- was entitled pro- deficiency under this quirements ernment’s assessments thereon free basically sold are follows. cedure if the garded articles. as taxable of each format and details suit, period returns suit, plain- period Throughout August 1955, through October manufacturers, customers, set tiff’s through findings 12 of forth in set issuing certificates similar opin- accompanying findings of fact above, connection with described those ion. purchases of tuners a tax-free represented, needs, present certificates to note basis. Their it suffices For so, correctly by plain- monthly that the tuners returns filed that the *4 October, plant of a Batavia, used in the manufacture be Illinois, tiff’s agreed 1952, set. November, article —a television related and December procedure was no concerned that and made articles other taxable suggested that proper, in- the tubes tuners mention of either paid collected plaintiff litigation. should volved in any tuners even on of its sales over of the some Though plaintiff made though they taxable tubes. included litigation at in this involved Pennsylvania, bulk Philadelphia, receiving In- After the indication from headquarters its made them 1955 ternal Revenue in that its tuners Bloomington, Indiana. plant in might taxable, plaintiff considered be buying and is- continued tubes tax-free excise 1952, plaintiff filed After suing suppliers exemption certificates than a quarterly rather on a returns type previously In ad- of the dition, however, described. monthly basis. purchase is- each 1954, 1, February approximately On exemption sued a second certificate —a delinquent return plaintiff filed regulations certificate authorized returns, quarter These of 1953. each subparagraph (2) of sections 3442 timely filed there- returns as the as well Codes, and 4220 of the 1939 and 1954 through quarter for each calendar after spectively. 1955, of all August value declared the noted, previously subparagraph by plaintiff As tuner tubes tuners and of these sections deals with the situa- thereon because no tax due but showed where a pur- manufacturer of taxable sales were made instances the in all purchases components that are exemption issued certificates suant subject comple- to tax. In themselves manufacturers, as plaintiff by set fashion, mentary subparagraph (2) com- previously noted herein. prehends compo- Commissioner June nents to manu- resale deficiencies Internal Revenue assessed type facturer of the described in sub- totaling against plaintiff $115,461.70for paragraph (1). Thus, in this second $447,813.- 1953 and the first 3 months of type of certificate that issued quarter of 1952 and all 41 for last suppliers represented its buying it was through April quarters from 1953 question solely the tubes in for August 31, 1955. resale to a vendee who would use them paid $115,461.70 Plaintiff deficien- as material in the a tax- cy paid full but has According able article —a television set. $447,813.41 for which the Government Government, plaintiff improperly agreed has counterclaimed but to refrain issued these certificates because was adjudi- collecting, pending a final not a dealer in tubes but a manufacturer cation of merits of this suit. included tubes. As will seen, duly incorrect in Government is claim for Plaintiff filed a refund deficiency payment contention. of its and after the
1207
pres-
ject
formally disallowed,
To
an assessment at
time.
claim
transactions,
the extent of such omitted
commenced.
action was
ent
held,
taxpayer
court
had failed
among
noted,
previously
file
return.
contentions
various
premise underpin-
The fundamental
Specifi
limitations.
bar of
on the
based
People’s
holding
ning
the limitations
that certain
cally,
asserts
Outfitting, supra,
the incidence
is that
underlying
involved
assessments
separately
in-
taxes falls
excise
too
made
late.
this action were
dependently on each taxable transaction.
assessment,
untimely
The claim of
States, 315 F.2d
See
United
McDonald v.
merit,
not directed
is without
(6th
1963);
Fox,
800
Jones
Cir.
v.
large
only to
last
to the suit at
(D.Md.1958);
F.Supp.
455
quarter
months
first 4
Cory Corp.
Sauber,
v.
363 U.S.
of 1953.
S.Ct.
the latter applied same TO and in 1950 when it OR TION FOR SALES MANUFACTURERS, provides: RESALES Finally, sets.2 treatment television periodical although Revenue Service regulations prescribed by the Under ly rulings regulations defin issued delegate, Secretary or no tax under his taxing stat as used in the “chassis” chapter with re- shall be after utes, not until it was well spect to the article— period suit, that here in the Service ma- vendee use expressly declared that produc- terial performs demodulation function component part of, of, or as a 58-27, a taxable “chassis.” Rev.Rul. chapter; article enumerated agree parties 1958-1 Cum.Bull. 414. The including generally, that television for resale the vendee for such suit, perform func do not those vendee, if use such article tion. in due course so resold. basically equivocal state In view of urged by plain- proposition The first ap- the factual record both tiff, the bulk one which and the question of whether plicable law on directed, efforts were trial sides’ “chas- are taxable as (in the tubes is that its tuners entitling sis,” thereby used) the “chassis” taxable as tuner tubes tax-free Code, section described 4220(1) 3442(1) sections provisions, sections its successor Codes, it is held respective Revenue 1954 Code. See 4141 and proof not met burden says, 1, supra,. Accordingly, plaintiff *6 n. may prevail on this not and therefore a aof since it was manufacturer theory eligibility tube of for tax-free purchase the it was entitled to short, purposes purchase. for (1) necessary tubes under subsection regarded plaintiff’s decision quoted above. statute taxable, con- not as the Government as agree a sides While both tends. company may “chassis,” be a fallacy de- Government’s The as the functional characteristics accept emerges you cen- fense capabilities that tuner must premise are nontax- tral statutory quoted fit term. order to premise apply re- able and Specifically, dispute is_ de- whether right question pur- lated ability produce lis- modulation—the (2) chase tubes tax-free under subsection requisite among sound—is tenable provi- and 4220. That of sections 3442 capabilities, functional the Government says previously quoted, sion, in effect arguing plaintiff affirmative and buy free negative. parties that one taxable article The marshalled respectable opinion supporting expert buying provided for it he is conflicting of that sides issue. uses ma- who resale it testimony and other do evidence adduced production terial in the manufacture any understanding, in not reveal settled end taxable. is industry either the communications contention first alternative As its general among public, to whether asserts, plaintiff correctly, capability a tuner without demodulation mitigation companion within this comes Equally is un- nonetheless “chassis.” clear, bought tuner, provision applied to a is one who tubes what Con- 994, 1950,
2. Act ch. 906. Sec. Revenue 64 Stat. prove plaintiff ar- terials not a manu- manufacturers resale facturer sense relevant to that is sets. ticles—television eligibility purchase priv- its ileges. tax-free says plaintiff Government provision qualify under purchase not does the tubes present system did because Our of manufacturers’ simply re- originated question dealer who aas excise taxes in the Revenue Be- selling manufacturers. to set them Act of ch. 169. Stat. purchased the cause the important recognize It is tuners, the for use in its argument Bill, Report Committee to which the re- legal goes, in rela- status relates, lied on dif- Government that of a manu- tubes was tion to those fundamentally scope fered from the Government, According to the facturer. legislation ultimately enacted. manufacturing op- performs one who compo- purchased taxable eration on a Report, H.Rep. As disclosed buy under the it tax-free nent cannot Cong., (1939-1 No. 72d 1st Sess. which, of subsection (Part 2) 457,463), Cum.Bull. the Com- insists, applies to dealers. general mittee Bill for a called manufac- turers’ percent excise tax of “of 2% difficulty with the Government’s * * * price every article sold First, far two-fold. in the United States the manufactur- where from clear as a matter law that producer er or ap- thereof.” Under this ultimately component in fact proach all manufacturers were to be li- end-product manufac- resold to a taxable censed and sales between licensed manu- availability turer, facturers made tax-free. See Secs. 601 privileges subsection and 606 of Cong., H.R. 72d 1st up- intermediate seller is conditioned reported Sess. as Ways out on what he does with the Means Committee on March Second, possession. is in while un- privileges are deemed even if such Report In its the Committee listed intermediate to an available “six fundamental tests” that it felt must disqualified turer, be met in a manufacturers’ excise tax because, own under the Government’s among bill. The third these was that: view, plaintiff a “manufacturer” was not “Pyramiding prevented.” must be 1939- clearly defined term is of tuners as that (Part 2) 1 Cum.Bull. 479. With purposes ex- the manufacturers’ spect meeting requirement *7 to its Bill seen, definition, it will be tax. That cise explained (at 480): the Committee taxability product presupposes of the imposition The of several taxes with If produced manufacture. the act of respect any commonly article, nontaxable, resulting product the pyramiding, effectively ferred respect to with insists the Government system eliminated under the bill tuners, has the then “manufacture” licensing. All manufacturers and no matter how occurred. This is true producers (other than those whose sophisticated extensive, func- in the gross receipts |20,000) are less than operations performed sense, toinal the per- must be licensed. The bill then produce product. the mits the sale of articles tax free from contention bases its Government one licensee product Thus, to another. the manufacturer was a of one manufacturer which is excerpt primarily on an from a be used as a material a second Report manufacturer, on a passes through 1932 House Committee long-standing Treasury ap- Regulation, stages of manufacture without the im- language, Report parently based on that of a tax. this manner the defining purposes imposed upon a manufacturer for tax is the once— analysis, the excise On ma- tax. these enter- final finished exigencies consumption. time, fur- no cause the channels of report ther was issued. [Emphasis added.] Though pro- the selective excise taxes Bill the Committee Section 617 passed by Bill the vided House Among entirely to definitions. devoted level, at manufacturers’ “manu- statutory defined terms longer no the act of manufacture was Regarding produce.” or facture liability. the touchstone No matter stated as follows the Committee term manufacturing how much un- 487): article (1939-1 2) (Part Cum.Bull. derwent, its sale the manufacturer (e) give is intended Subsection was not taxable one of unless was possible scope to term broadest specifically enumerated in produce,” or so that no “manufacture liability purposes, then, For Bill. manipulating processing or an ar- manufacturing issue whether oc- had ticle, slightly, es- will matter how only curred became relevant the ar- cape classification as manufacturer type ticle sold was of a described in the * * * producer. or recognized principle statute. This language This is on which Treasury Regulation defining erroneously relies for Government purposes “manufacturer” for tax- urges definition of “manufacture” that ing provisions in this suit. involved selective, in relation to the and therefore Treasury Regulation 46, 316.4 § taxing basically different, in- statutes provides: volved this suit. (a) aisWho Manufacturer. — Notably, general levy excise under the per- includes “manufacturer” term Bill, provided taxability the House article produces a taxable who son depend solely article was made material, junk salvage, scrap, or from had it in what the seller done with material, or raw from new well as physical or functional sense. Plain- manipulating, or by processing, operations unquestion- tiff’s would article, or changing anof form ably have to an act of manu- amounted assembling combining two however, equally clear, facture. [Emphasis added.] articles. more licensing that because of the feature of Treasury De- Thus, seen it is Bill, plaintiff purchased could have only one partment itself declared tubes tax-free and its tuners free is a man- produces a taxable who tax. Under Bill would have purposes of the ufacturer been the set television manufacturer who Curiously, de- tax. turers’ made the first and taxable sale. reg- quoted heavily on the relies fendant Committee Bill underwent exten- support contention ulation Cong.Rec. sive floor debate. See 75 For rea- “manufacturer.” ais 5384, 5461, 5689, 5692-93, 5697, however, unknown, it overlooks sons significance 6163, 6337-6360, 5888-5904, 6158, taxability underscored (1938). general 6469-6684 hostility Aside language. principle, to sales there *8 teaching of the with the Consistent preference was a tax stated a on se- litigation center- Regulation, tax excise articles, automobiles, lected re- as ais of whether on the issue than, frigerators, radios, etc. rather the the always arisen in manufacturer general by proposed the Committee. ar- production of a context Finally, a motion to the strike Commit- example, Har- See, Williams v. ticle. pro- tee’s entire manufacturers’ 1940); (7th Cir. rison, F.2d 989 110 posal Cong. passed. was made and 75 Higgins, 124 Marchand Co. v. Charles 6686, Following (1938). Rec. 6816 1942). (2d 433 Cir. F.2d responded action the with a Committee Accordingly, closely conten- the Government’s selective excise bill not utilize finally adopted. could Be- sembled the version
1211 purchase privileges sections nontaxable, priv- tax-free that he sells is 4220(2) ileges 3442(2) subparagraph (2). because and come from merit. of tuners is without manufacturer sum, plaintiff’s if tuners are tax- general in be manufacturer able, buy was entitled tubes tax- Brewing g., sense, e. Anheuser-Busch (1). free under subsection If are 556, Assn. v. United 207 U.S. not, it was to do so entitled under sub- 204, 560-562, L.Ed. 336 28 S.Ct. (2). section special in limited and suggestion The context of manufacturers’ excise tax Government’s further clearly because, previously standing not in as relation to seen, anti-pyramiding provisions produces not “a who be should by provided (i. e„ fixed what article” in Treas. it termed itself manufacturer) Reg. supra. 46, 316.4, exemption some of § sup- certificates issued its tube progenitor The of these intermediate pliers, reg- is also without merit. The provisions sale was added to law recognize notice-giving ulations 16, 1933, section 4 Act June (rather substantive) than character of 96, amending ch. 48 Stat. section by providing certificates that even the Revenue Act of if no certificate pur- is issued at time of fully action was taken more effectuate chase, buyer is nonetheless entitled Congressional policy against pyra- fixed purchase privileges if he miding. H.Rep.No. 45, Cong., 1st 73d fact comes within either of the anti- Sess., S.Rep.No. 58, Cong., 73d 1st Sess. pyramiding Treasury Regula- statutes. (1939-1 (Part 2) 883-84). Cum.Bull. tions on Manufacturers and Ex- Retailers (1954 Code), Tax 40.4220-3(b) cise purpose adopt- The sole obvious §§ 40.4220-4(b). ing section 620 Revenue Act amended, eventually be- Finally, urges the Government Code, came section 3442 of the 1939 adoption of Public Law ch. finally Code, section 4220 of the August 69 Stat. 11, 1955, dem- pyramiding. theretofore, Compan- the avoidance of onstrates that specifical- ly during period here, plain- in suit (2) ion subsections of those tiff similarly and others situated could by providing achieve result sections purchase of tax. free that, including taxable com- an article relied on does not bear ponents to a is sold manufacturer out this contention. pur- product, components taxable end supplier question, enactment the intermediate effective chased prospectively only, restructured subject payment him. Code, by retaining pre section end-product If the article sells he vious of that section in sub taxable, his tax- is itself manufacturer adding section the new matter privileges are conferred free - (2).3 provi subsection The added by subparagraph (1). If “(A) amended, provides: use the vendee material 3. As section 4220 production of, prescribed regulations in the manufacture or or as “Under of, Secretary delegate, an article enu- or his no tax under chapter; respect chapter merated in this shall with to the of— “(B) by the for resale vendee for such “(1) (other than an auto- vendee, if is in use such article due accessory part or mobile taxable under *9 resold; course so or refrigerator component 4061(b), a section 4111, section or taxable under a radio tel- accessory part “(2) automobile or an component evision taxable under section 4061(b), a re- taxable under section 4141, or a lens taxable under camera sec- frigerator component sec- 4171)— tion (1955-2 881, Cong. with 1st Sess. Cum.Bull. intended to deal not sions were Ways 884, the Means Finance type presented in this situations of carefully explained Committees case. background purpose of the new shown, funda previously legislation. policy of manufacturers’ mental existing First, they noted that under always impose legislation been to compo- law tax is on taxable levy is made on the sale that product though nents the consumer even point of manufacture final ultimately used in which are consump the channels enters article only statutory excep- nontaxable. The formulating provisions nec In tion. result, ob- tion to this the Committees objective, policy essary to achieve served, components in the case recognized Congress would be that there refrigerators. used manufacture product taxable end situations where however, by added, Committees an components included various ruling old the Revenue administrative end-product manufacturer obtained Service had accorded treatment similar To extent independent vendors. parts in the case certain automotive components included either that such and accessories. tax themselves or were taxable articles light background, In the of this imposition articles, an able legislation Committees felt end-product sales to intermediate provide single needed and uniform multiple would result manufacturer components applicable to rule articles the same taxation when making products. end used nontaxable product again part of the end taxed as Such also remove exist- would by manufacturer. the final sold original inequalities com- between two provisions section ponents competed in the market by Congress insure the means selected against though might place, be made from multiple taxation while not. the other was component article, first as a same again product. enumerating a finished as a After these various con- designed to Thus, provisions were siderations, these the Committees stated the solely produc policy objective legis- to. the in relation function basic of the new by products (1955-2 885) made taxable tion of end lation Cum.Bull. statute. follows: * * * Providing Congress however, became In products prob- end sales where the completely different aware prevent components taxable also will the indirect lem, the situation where e., i. Congress by bought taxation articles which statute were made taxable has not considered it desirable to him final and used manufacturer ** subject to direct produce excise taxation. end that was an
taxable.
sum,
the concern
whereas
prior provisions
Reports,
of section 4220 was that
H.Rep.No.
84th
single
Cong.,
Sess.;
excise tax would
S.Rep.No.
84th
manufacturers’
1st
(2)
paragraph
(A)
(1)
is sold under
or
a radio or television
(B)
(A)
paragraph
(1)
or
or
or
resold under
taxable under section
a camera
(2)
(B) shall be considered the manu-
lens
section
taxable under
4171—
producer
“(A)
article. The
material
facturer or
for use
the vendee as
production
paragraphs
of,
in the
or as
apply
respect
tires,
component part
any article;
shall not
with
tubes,
“(B)
inner
or automobile radio or tele-
for resale
the vendee for
receiving
vendee,
vision
sets taxable under section
if such
in due
use
article is
4141.”
resold.
course so
purposes
chapter,
manu-
For
of this
producer
facturer or
to whom
*10
only upon
handling
the
of this
imposed
collected
I
case.
would like to
my
enter-
add
explain
a few
finished
comments to
of a
own
object
channels,
consumption
the
views.
altogether
was
amendment
appearances,
To
po-
all
the defendant’s
any
upon
prevent
collection
lacking
degree
sition is
in merit
to a
not,
any article,
sale of
among
which is unusual
the tax cases
use was in the manufacture
ultimate
its
that come to this court. This is because
product
was nontaxable.
of an
that
end
principles
statutory
construction
controlling
con-
instances
applicable herein have suffered
disre-
taxability
of the end
sideration
gard of a
taxing
which
kind
defendant’s
product
all
results after
rarely guilty
authorities
are
of.
turing
product
If that
is tax-
is done.
outset,
At
components
point
able,
I
would like
all of
constituent
out
nontaxable,
argued
3rd
are
once.
If it
case
within a
taxed
span
two
components
months’
used to make it are not
which defendant’s
candidly acknowledged
counsel has
It is
to read
taxed at
unwarranted
all.
suggest
single
he is
into
unable to
more
the 1955 enactment.
than
reason
why
event,
legislative history
Congress
rules
should have wished
statutory
enact
into
out
notion that
added
law
construc
urges.
apply
were intended
to situations
defendant
The other
two
suit,
product
cases
as that
where the end
v.
Jones
United
No.
components
ultimately
146-48, disposed
May 19th,
into
order,
article,
merge
(a
e.,
case);
i.
pay
is a
a tele-
and United States v.
Village
al.,
vision
set.
amendment would have Native
et
Unalakleet
Ct.
buying
plaintiff
Cl.,
(decided
20th,
been
had
been
relevant
course under law tubes here involved such as the taxpayer. for the individual On plain- physically attached to hand, system jus- adversary other only plugged into tuners but are tiff’s tice to focus the of courts tends attention place, the com- sockets. In the third on the immediate issue before them and out, (contrary points even if missioner will in the are often—with the best fact) physically incor- world—oblivious much all of the porated in the tuners and could problems. conceptual broader For damage, is no there removed without to the technical reason courts often seem holding compelling reason ignor- hyperactive children like officials under the is a “manufacturer” antly innocently dealing destruction regulations applicable. statute and often them. The officials around place, appears possible to fourth persons seem courts as bent on me “for use hold the articles injustice. perpetuation Each side the vendee material in the understanding of the a better needs point problems view. other’s *12 COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC Corporation adversary system to con- tends v. reasoning than disclose ceal rather The UNITED STATES. background adminis- that underlies No. 370-67. decisions. The less the trative is chal- he about how decision knows States United Court of Claims. made, lenging he effective the less July 1969. This, wrong. proving will be Reconsideration Denied Oct. pressure course, is one reason for the gain unpublished plaintiffs to access to rulings
private opposition to and for the by the defendant. case, probing In this there some rulings. unpublished private
into See sought Finding 28. The
show administrative discrimination doctrine of International Corp.
Business Machines United v.
States, 343 F.2d 170 Ct.Cl.
(1965). The not base commissioner did we, though this, do decision nor story Treasury’s hesitations is of interest. Even vacillations
tually going up arewe to have firm a proper private about the use of rulings persons parties issued litigation actually us. Dis before go tressing itas is to into defendant to material, furnish times times,
the illumination needed. At doubt, it is irrelevant and useless. What really wanting knowledge here is why taxpayer the IRS handled the did, not whether it him the handled similarly
same as others situated. judicial
In most reviews, courts have thinking benefit the of- being
ficials whose decision is reviewed. litigation,
In tax custom often recently against protested
do I not. have
deciding tax on. cases with blinders
Inter-City Truck Lines v. United (decided
408 F.2d 187 Ct.Cl. 14, 1969, dissenting opinion). I
March here, I
do not think have blinders on imper-
I do some consciousness
fect vision. When will defendant assume educating the court about onus
decisions, keeping instead of it in the
dark?