Court Opinion

ID: 9637497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:07:52.610788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:56.627105
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority that the taxpayer made out a prima facie case.' I agree with them, too, that if the record supports their view that the Commissioner under 907(e)1 rebutted the prima facie showing which taxpayer made under 907(a), the Board erred in finding for the taxpayer without requiring him to make further proof. I find myself, however, in agreement with the statement of the Board that the Commissioner (respondent before the Board) attempted, but failed, to rebut the presumption established by the taxpayer (petitioner).2 I am in agreement, too, with the view of the Board that the taxpayer is not limited in his recovery to the $19,780.-20 originally set forth as the sum of it, and may recover the full amount of $38,847.25. Pink v. United States, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 183; Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. United States, 289 U.S. 28, 53 S.Ct. 454, 77 L.Ed. 1011; Electric Storage Battery Co. v. McCaughn, D. C., 54 F.2d 814; United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U.S. 62, 53 S.Ct. 278, 77 L.Ed. 619. Cf. Rule 15(b) Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. I, therefore, dissent from the reversal and remand.

 “Either the claimant or the Commissioner may rebut the presumption established by subsection (a) of this section by-proof of the actual extent to which the claimant shifted to others the burden of the processing tax.” (Italics supplied.)

 “Respondent attempted to rebut the presumption established by the petitioner under section 907(a) of the Revenue Act of 1936 by adducing certain evidence for the purpose of showing that the petitioner either billed the processing tax to its vendees as separate items or otherwise included the amount thereof in its sales prices. This evidence fails to show with respect to any transaction the actual extent to which the petitioner may have shifted to others the burden of the processing tax. Therefore it is held that the petitioner is entitled to a refund under and in accordance with tlie said prima-facie presumption.” (Italics supplied.)