FORREST CITY PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the taxpayer did not qualify as a new taxpayer in 1961, thus the change in accounting period without the Commissioner's consent was invalid.
The taxpayer changed its accounting period from calendar to fiscal year in 1961 without the Commissioner's consent. The Commissioner disallowed this c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Forrest City Production Credit Association from final judgment denying its claim for refund of deficiency in 1961 income tax determined by the Commissioner resulting from a disallowance of a change of taxpayer’s annual accounting period.
The taxpayer in 1961, without the consent of the Commissioner, changed its accounting and tax reporting period from a calendar year to a fiscal year basis. Such change in reporting taxes without the consent of the Commissioner is available only to new taxpayers. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether under the income tax law and regulations the taxpayer in 1961 qualified as a new taxpayer. Chief Judge Harris who tried this case decided the issue against the tax payer. His well-considered opinion, which sets out the undisputed facts and the relevant statutes and regulations, is reported at D.C., 300 F.Supp. 609.
The crucial issue presented on this appeal presents a close and difficult question of first impression. We have given careful consideration to the contentions made by able counsel for both sides. Judge Harris in his well-reasoned opinion has fairly demonstrated that he has correctly resolved the issue. No useful purpose will be served in retreading the ground so well covered by Judge Harris in his opinion.
We affirm upon the basis of Judge Harris’ reported opinion.