26 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.Ohio), 3670, Huntington Securities Corp. v. Busey

Docket Nº:3670.
Citation:26 F.Supp. 849
Party Name:HUNTINGTON SECURITIES CORPORATION v. BUSEY, Collector of Internal Revenue.
Court:United States District Courts, 6th Circuit, Southern District of Ohio

Page 849

26 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.Ohio)



BUSEY, Collector of Internal Revenue.

No. 3670.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio

Date Not Given

Arnold, Wright, Purpus & Harlor, of Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Francis Canny, U.S. Atty., of Dayton, Ohio, Ray J. O'Donnell, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Columbus, Ohio, and James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew D. Sharp and Mills Kitchin, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant.

UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

This is an action seeking refund of income and excess profits taxes paid by the plaintiff under protest and for which the plaintiff duly filed its claim for refund.

By a stipulation of the parties, trial by a jury was waived and the case submitted to the Court upon an agreed statement of facts.

This action for refund arose by reason of an assessment of an income tax in the sum of $6,967.62 and an excess profits tax of $1,112 for the taxable year of 1933 and an assessment of an income tax of $5,989.87 and an excess profits tax of $849.91 for the taxable year of 1934. The plaintiff paid all these sums plus interest of $1,354.38 on

Page 850

March 20, 1936. The total amount paid was $16,273.78.

The assessment of the taxes was due to the action of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wherein he changed the inventory basis of the securities held by the plaintiff to a current market value basis as of the beginning and end of the years 1933 and 1934, and on such changed basis made his computation of taxes, which resulted in the finding by him that the plaintiff had a net income for the taxable year of $50,673.62 and for the taxable year 1934 of $43,562.70.

The plaintiff is a corporation which was organized for the purpose of taking over the securities of the Huntington National Bank and to engage in the business of buying and selling securities as a dealer in securities.

In the agreed statement of facts, the plaintiff objects to the statement made in paragraph 7 and to Defendant's Exhibits 1 to 16 inclusive, on the ground that the same are immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent.

The objections are hereby overruled for the reason that the statement and the exhibits have some relevancy to the method pursued by the plaintiff in valuing its inventory and, for that reason, are material and there is no ground on which they are incompetent.

Plaintiff has...

To continue reading