cta_decision CTA Case No. 324324 1958-01-10

CTA Case No. 324 (Decision)

' o, PHILIPPr~~ ACEI'YLIU:!; CI Petiti::mt'r , - versus - CaT . A. CASE NO . 324 SILVERIO BLA~UBRA , as Collector of InternaJ Revenue , X- - - - - - - - - - - X � D .5 C I 8 I 0 N The petition0r is a doMestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of oxygen Qnd acetylene gases . In a letter dated June o, 1956 , received by petitioner on July 5, 1956 , respondent asses5ed against pet'tioner a deficiency sales tax and surcharge amount- ing to Pl0 , 879 o03, covering the period ~rom 1951 to the second quarter of 1955, computed as follows : Tg.xable sales o ����� o ���� o. ~1 , 584 . 728954 7% tax due therco1 ���...� o 110 , 931 . ~0 Less : amount paid �� o ������ 102 , 227 . 7~ Deficiency sales~ . ���..� 8,703 . 22 2, 175 . 81 257o surchar ~ �������� o ���� 10 , H79.&Ql Total o �������������� o � Petitioner was also asked to pay the sun of P500aOO , in a dition to the sum of Pl0 , 879 o03 , if it desired to settle extrajudicially its violation of Sections ,183 and 186 of the National Internal ~evenue Code , penalized under Sr.c- tion 209 of the saMe Codoo Petitioner souf-ht a roc1nsideration of the ussess - ment, and , upon denial thereof , appealed to this Court . Two isstes have been raised in this appeal , to wit : ( 1) 'l.�rhether or not the appeal -vras 'iled vli th �n the sta- =-:: -- =--- -� ..

, - 2- 0 y io 0 ys r c:t1on 11 of 1 c ct o. 12 � an ( ?.) t t de- f ency t� 1� r on 1 of t �� t ee of -.. - f ry ion � f �v�r� on f - pet of acear-c � ollecto � ct 1 0 n pr � i lty � IJ .. I :J

�4 .. 3 � , of f c cy !; nt. t t d th t p - ubj ct 0 rc nt n ts f oxy n n c g � oss G r n y nc --- ctlo ro te tr to t und e on t ot 1 nt 0 v lue r tr � t1 l nt rn 1 ro x. 1 n� 0c t i r� eul �t J r 12, v ly. ) t t � nd � t c on r 1 � c r 1 �� ������������ ;' 3

E � S24 -- 0 0 �������������������� � 1 . ~J4� � �� ������� � ���� � � ~ 11 p t d y r ������������������� 0 rt fc � tha t to eu r le ly s. r: t ly h �� t c ... " c 11 wl ~ r u~ t y lt atla :1��� � 1

... � 24 -- �������� � � � � � � � .~--oiio!JroAoji~~~� X ����������� ������������������ xa i' ' 5

~� � � � -, r t l tX nt COl i r �� p od of n rt _e � � it s e l r ita 1n the nvoic dt t d t o. l . 1n n r 1 1r 1 t ill the t � if rep.r nt th n ft x, t of ~ cul r c: n bill not nin d et�on 186 ( co tX Q on) , r nt � ot l n t l " 111 to t ~ t y on � thor z y o. .,l , f. � � 111 t to rfi t1 0 t f 61. l. unt ( v ll t lh d � f y cl t xclu i t tt - i n r t to h � . !.1 1 r v1 � / ;, ; 6 d '

�2 -7- � . s. ch tn p t t1 n r eoll ct t ount lr dy t h 1 1c cu en . tt y py t er, v ttf!c n r 1 l y 1t h l; 1 nt 11 ly 0 fr n0 pr r i' ~ 7

I -- � p t� ' th f �- 1. 1 h!ch t al t x has �� � � n1 y the cu a p ut .~h te ro pet ttl er � /.~ . r - � t - t r � not c t t ): t l.t c t � lt r t0 � lt - � t at 1 nt of c 11 t � c .. t t i oner; t x rc r 1 o- r y co lre y h1 0 h t n of y t0 1 nu,, � c.: 0 nt r to c I do p t hG u - � ccord n ly. ur 1 on to sald f o. � (y 1 o�� � v � t r of Int rn 1 o. 15~. � 19 7. ) . . . ~-. ! .:'

y p nt st � � pet r ya � 1 h s lnt pet t1 r. � y 1 � 19 � 9 I

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.