Alumax Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 63

                                       - 55 -                                         
               prevent the government from correctly ascertaining and                 
               collecting the sums as taxes that are justly due it.                   
               Schlafly v. United States, * * * [4 F.2d 195 (8th Cir.                 
               1925)] 8 Cir., 4 F.2d 195 at page 200; Atlantic City                   
               Electric Co. v. Commissioner, 288 U.S. 152, 154, 53                    
               S.Ct. 383, 384, 77 L.Ed. 667.                                          
                    The Commissioner and the Board, in the construc-                  
               tion of the acts prior to 1926, generally, whenever the                
               question was raised, followed this rule, that the stock                
               which must be taken into consideration in determining                  
               whether grounds for affiliation exist, was stock having                
               a right to control the management of a corporation, as                 
               in the election of directors.                                          
                    With such an established and recognized construc-                 
               tion by the Department, Congress in enacting the 1926                  
               and 1928 acts should be held to mean by "nonvoting                     
               stock" stock not having the right to vote for directors                
               who control the management of the corporation. * * *                   
                        *     *     *     *     *     *     *                         
                    "Voting stock may very properly be termed manage-                 
               ment stock." * * *  [Erie Lighting Co. v. Commissioner,                
               supra at 884-885.]                                                     
          The court in the Erie Lighting Co. case also quoted with approval           
          the following statement in Commissioner v. Shillito Realty Co.,             
          39 F.2d 830, 832 (6th Cir. 1930), affg. 8 B.T.A. 665 (1927):15              


          15  Petitioners contend on brief that the analysis in Commis-               
          sioner v. Shillito Realty Co., 39 F.2d 830 (6th Cir. 1930), affg.           
          8 B.T.A. 665 (1927), "conflicts with, and must therefore yield              
          to, [the analysis] * * * of two subsequent decisions of the                 
          Supreme Court," viz, Atlantic City Elec. Co. v. Commissioner, 288           
          U.S. 152 (1933), and Burnet v. Howes Bros. Hide Co., 284 U.S. 583           
          (1931) (per curiam).  Not only did the court in Erie Lighting Co.           
          v. Commissioner, 93 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.), revg. 35 B.T.A. 906                
          (1937), the principal case on which petitioners rely to support             
          their mechanical test, quote with approval the above statement              
          from the Shillito case, it expressly found that that statement              
          was "in no way opposed" to the Supreme Court decision in Handy &            
          Harman v. Burnet, 284 U.S. 136 (1931), the controlling authority            
          on which the Supreme Court relied in deciding the Atlantic City             
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011