BILL BLAKE ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the restoration process of straightening and replating automobile bumpers did not constitute 'manufacturing' subject to federal excise tax.
Appellants, a partnership and corporation, engaged in straightening and replating damaged automobile bumpers. They sought a refund of federal manufact…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment denying recovery in a consolidated action for refund of federal manufacturers excise tax assessed against and collected from appellants, a partnership, Plains Electroplating and Bumper Supply, consisting of Bill Blake, James Boase, and Robert Brown, and a corporation, Plains Electro-Plating and Bumper Supply Company. Appellants’ business is straightening and replating damaged and otherwise unusable automobile bumpers. The narrow issue on appeal is whether appellants’ restoration process constituted “manufacturing” under Internal Revenue Code of 1954 Section 4061(b) 1 and accompanying regulations.2
The district court filed a thorough opinion containing concise findings of fact and conclusions of law.3 We are in agreement with the conclusions reached by the court below and nothing is to be gained by further discussion in this court. We approve and adopt the district court’s opinion and order the judgment affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Int.Rev.Code of 1954 Section 4061(b) states in part:
“There is hereby imposed upon [automobile] parts or accessories * * * sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax equivalent to 8 percent of the price for which so sold * *
. Treas.Reg. Section 48.4061 (b) — 3 provides with regard to rebuilt, reconditioned, or repaired parts or accessories:
(a) Rebuilt parís or accessories. Rebuilding of automobile parts or accessories, as distinguished from reconditioning or repairing, constitutes manufacturing, and the rebuilder of such parts or accessories is liable fox the tax imposed by section 4061(b) with respect to his sales of such rebuilt parts or accessories. RebOring or other machining, rewinding and comparable major operations constitute rebuilding * * *
(b) Reconditioned parts or accessories. The mere disassembling, cleaning, and reassembling (with any necessary replacement of worn parts) of automobile parts or accessories * * * are regarded as reconditioning operations rather than the manufacturing or production of rebuilt parts or accessories. The sale of reconditioned parts or accessories is not subject to tax. * * *
See generally Hartley v. United States, 252 F. 2d 262 (5th Oir. 1958); Campbell v. Brown, 245 F. 2d 662 (5th Cir. 1957). The Commissioner has concluded that processes such as appellants’ constitute manfacturing. Rev.Rul. 62-162, 1962-2 Cum.Bull. 241.
. Reported at 249 F.Supp. 296 (N.D.Tex. 1964).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ellis Campbell, Jr. v. Brown, 245 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1957)
- Hartley v. United States, 252 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1958)