Portland Copper & Tank Works, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sunstrand Corp. & Consol. Subsidiaries (United States Tax Court 1992)
- W. J. Strickland Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1974)
- Gar Wood Industries, Inc. v. United States (6th Cir. 1971)
- Garwood Industries v. United States (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1969)
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
Essentially this case involves the single question whether an accrual taxpayer which has received payments under subcontracts subject to renegotiation under goverment procurement statutes may set up as a reserve, and accordingly deduct from gross income, amounts which by as-sertedly and, we will assume, concededly, proper accounting methods it appeared during the taxable year would later have to be repaid. The Tax Court rejected taxpayer’s contention. 43 T.C. 182. We have little to add to its opinion. It does not help taxpayer for the court to find that these reserves were minimum amounts. It is the existence of any reserve, not the amount, which is in controversy. Taxpayer’s contracts with the prime contractor gave it a right to receive full payment, and no negotiations resulting in a readjustment of the contracts in question took place during the taxable year. The- fact that as to some of the contracts taxpayer made a specific offer in settlement of its obligation to renegotiate established nothing. Since the offers had not been accepted, they could be withdrawn. We agree with the Tax Court that there was nothing inherently improper in requiring taxpayer to wait and proceed under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1482.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.