Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Commissioner
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Colorado & S. Ry. v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1937)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*1153 1. Interest allowed by the Director General of Railroads on the cost of additions and betterments made during the period of Federal control
2. Back mail pay allowed to the petitioner pursuant to an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission
*259 This proceeding is for the redetermination of deficiencies in petitioner's income tax for 1920 and 1923 in the respective amounts of $511,178.20 and $41,800.30. The pleadings as amended raised several issues which have been disposed of by confession of error, withdrawal of the allegation, and agreement. The due effect of *260 these actions will be considered under Rule 50 settlement. The only issues for our determination are (1) whether rental interest on completed additions and betterments allowed by the*1154 Director General of Railroads in the final settlement for the period of Federal control constitutes income in the year of allowance (1923) or in the respective years for which the allowance is made; and (2) whether certain back mail pay received by the petitioner in 1920 and 1921 constitutes income in 1920. The respondent duly asserted claim to any increase in the deficiencies that may result from our redetermination.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
The petitioner is a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with principal offices at 466 Lexington Avenue, New York City.
The petitioner's properties were operated by the United States Government during the period of Federal control pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Control Act. In the year 1923 a final settlement was effected with the Director General of Railroads and the petitioner was allowed therein the sum of $197,926.83, representing rental interest on completed additions and betterments. The petitioner included $98,016.49 of this amount in its taxable income as reported in its 1923 return. The Commissioner has added $99,910.34 to the amount reported, thereby including the total amount of $197,926.83*1155 in the petitioner's taxable income for 1923.
Of the sum of $197,926.83 representing rental interest on completed additions and betterments allowed by the Director General of Railroads in the final settlement for the period of Federal control, $24,390.92 is the portion thereof applicable to the two months of January and February 1920, during which the properties of the petitioner were under Federal control.
During the years 1920 and 1921, the petitioner received and accrued upon its books the sums of $10,233.45 and $190.56, respectively, in consequence of Decision 9200 of the Interstate Commerce Commission,
In the amended income and excess profits tax return filed by the petitioner for the year 1920 there was reported as taxable income *261 the above amount of $10,233.45 received during the year 1920, and in*1156 the income and profits tax return filed by the petitioner for the year 1921 there was reported as taxable income the above amount of $190.56 received by the petitioner during the year 1921. The respondent eliminated the amounts from taxable income as reported by the petitioner in its returns for the years 1920 and 1921 on the ground that these amounts constituted taxable income for the year 1919, and the net taxable income reported by the petitioner in its amended income and profits tax return for the year 1920 was reduced by the respondent by the amount of $10,233.45 in arriving at the net taxable income shown in the notice of deficiency for the year 1920.
The petitioner kept its accounts on the acrual basis during the year 1919 and other years affected by this proceeding.
The books of petitioner for the year 1919 were closed on or about March 20, 1920.
OPINION.
SMITH: On brief the respondent admits that the first issue is similar to that decided by the Board in the case of
*262 The other issue is whether the back mail pay received by the petitioner in 1920 and 1921 pursuant to a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission on December 23, 1919, but not served on the interested parties or made public until January 15, 1920, constitutes taxable income for 1920. We have no information as to the year or years for which this back mail pay was allowed. Neither have we any explanation of or reason for two payments, one in 1920 and one in 1921, instead of a single payment of 1920. The respondent submits that the entire amount is taxable in 1920 under our decision in
We have reexamined our decision on this point in the
*263 In
The only compensation which the carriers had assurance of receiving for the transportation of mail was that named in the Act of Congress [approved July 28, 1916] and which was the amount accrued upon the petitioner's books prior to 1920, in accordance with the accounting requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The income-tax returns for years prior to 1920 were made upon the accrual basis and we think correctly made when made in accordance with the books of account. That no possible basis existed for any other accrual is plainly indicated by the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission*1161 in Docket 9200,
Interstate Comerce Commission Decision 9200 extended the provisions of the Act of 1916 to carriers other than those selected by the Postmaster General. In effect, that decision ordered compensation for transporting the mails to be made upon the space system but it did not even approximately determine the mail pay of any particular railroad. Subsequent proceedings were doubtless necessary to determine the application of the space system to carriers theretofore compensated upon some other basis.
The petitioner argues that the accounting regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission do not govern the issue before this Board. We recognized the force of this argument in
* * * What a carrier may do in its accounting classification as a private industry or even as a regulated interstate carrier is apart from its subservience as a taxpayer to the*1162 requirements of the revenue law.
See also
In the circumstances of the instant proceeding, we are of opinion that the accounting regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission as applied to the items under consideration are reasonable and more nearly reflect this petitioner's true income than would the accrual of these items in 1919. The petitioner has treated these items as income in the manner provided by the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations and there is nothing in this record to warrant a departure from our holding in
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.