General Dynamics Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          parties were attempting to stipulate to the amount of the credit            
          and only the legal question would be presented to the Court.                
               After the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the lower court in             
          Fairchild, respondent decided to concede the legal issue                    
          (regarding funding).  Respondent, for the first time, contended             
          that, based on the appellate court’s rationale, petitioner was              
          required to show the amount of research expenses in connection              
          with a particular line item in the fixed-price Government                   
          contracts.  In that regard, petitioner, under respondent’s                  
          approach, would be more specifically required to show that the              
          contract language for that item supports the conclusion that                
          payment is contingent on development of a specified product or              
          result, so as to have been paid contingent on the success of the            
          research.                                                                   
               We note that petitioner’s grievance is not without                     
          substance.  After all, respondent’s engineer had reflected an               
          adjusted (reduced but apparently agreeable to the engineer)                 
          amount of research credit in her report.  Those circumstances had           
          provided petitioner with comfort concerning the resolution of the           
          quantitative aspects of the research credit controversy.                    
          Ultimately, however, we view the question here as one of timing             
          and prejudice.  This is so because no enforceable agreement had             
          been entered into by the parties.  Accordingly, we must consider            
          whether respondent timely raised the requirement and whether                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011