Parker-Hannifin Corporation - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.            
          The use of the term “reserve” in this opinion is for convenience            
          and is not conclusive as to characterization for tax purposes.              
               After a concession by respondent, the issue for decision is            
          whether and to what extent, if any, Parker-Hannifin Corporation             
          may deduct $32,498,684 in contributions it made to a welfare                
          benefit trust on June 30, 1987.                                             
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated             
          facts are incorporated herein by this reference.1  At the time              
          the petition in this case was filed, Parker-Hannifin Corporation            
          had its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.                     
               Petitioner is an accrual basis taxpayer and files its                  
          Federal income tax return on a fiscal year ending June 30.                  
          Petitioner filed timely its Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income              
          Tax Return, and an associated amended return, Form 1120X, for its           
          taxable year ended June 30, 1987, with the Internal Revenue                 
          Service Center at Cincinnati, Ohio.                                         
               Petitioner and its subsidiaries are engaged in, among other            
          things, the design, manufacture, and marketing of components and            
          systems for builders and users of durable goods, including                  

               1The stipulation contained objections to many documents                
          offered by respondent, and those objections were sustained during           
          trial.  Nonetheless, respondent proposed findings and presented             
          arguments as if those documents were in evidence.  Such conduct             
          makes our task more difficult and respondent’s brief less                   
          reliable.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011