Court Opinion

ID: 9452095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:30:16.563762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:03.973366
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Judge
(concurring):
I join the court’s opinion but add some words on the relationship of this case to General Motors Corp. v. United States, 277 F.2d 929, 149 Ct.Cl. 749 (1960), and 154 Ct.Cl. 866 (1961) (the Frigidaire cases). Because of the intervening decision of the Second Circuit disagreeing with this court’s General Motors (Frigidaire) opinion (Waterman-Bic Pen Corp. v. United States, 332 F.2d 711 (1964)), I would normally feel bound to evaluate anew the correctness of our position. See Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 237, 246, 314 F.2d 953, 958 (1963) (concurring opinion). In the present case, however, the defendant does not ask us to reconsider or overturn General Motors (Frigidaire), and the Congressional amendment of September 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 1017, 1018 (including within the concept of “readjustment” an allowance for local advertising) deprives General Motors (Frigidaire) of practical impact on taxable years following that change. This suit concerns 1951-1954, and so far as we know the issues it raises are “dead-end” in the sense that they will not arise after 1960. In these circumstances, I see no need to reconsider General Motors (Frigidaire) and concur with the court that it should be fairly applied, without reassessment, to the present case. On that premise I agree that, with respect to consumer advertising, the distinctions defendant draws are insignificant and immaterial. To accept them would be to reject the necessary holding of the earlier cases.
On the other hand, the 1960 amendment and the Waterman-Bic decision influence me not to extend General Motors (Frigidaire) beyond the compass fairly presented by its facts as this court understood them. That was a consumer or retail advertising case and did not involve promotional activities. Retail advertising can. be considered as within the sphere of the distributor and dealer, not the manufacturer ; but much, if not all, of the promotional activities we have here are properly characterized as expenses to be borne *864by this plaintiff and within its sphere as manufacturer. In any event, I do not regard these promotional expenditures as a refund of part of the price paid by the purchaser.