TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Union Concrete Pipe Co.

United States v. Union Concrete Pipe Co., 93 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.W. Va 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Federal District Courts
Decided
November 3, 1950
Docket
No. 351
Judges
Watkins
Citations
93 F. Supp. 6501950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2381

Opinion of the Court — Watkins

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WATKINS, District Judge.

This is an action under the Renegotiation Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1191, Renegotiation Act, § 403 to recover alleged excessive profits on war contracts. Two questions remaining in this case to be decided are (1) the amount of interest to be charged, and (2) the date from which interest should run.

This court has decided both of these questions under similar facts and circumstances. In a well considered opinion, this court, speaking through Judge Moore, decided that the rate of interest to be charged on the excessive profits should be six per cent, and that interest should run from the date on which the Under Secretary of War demanded payment of the amount of excessive profits found by him to be due. United States v. Strontium Products Co., D.C., 68 F.Supp. 886 . I find nothing in the facts of this case to distinguish it from the Strontium Products Company case. For the reasons stated by this court in that case, plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant the sum of $6,300.00, with interest at six per cent from December 22, 1944, 1 until paid, and costs.

In his brief counsel for defendant says that since the Tax Court, upon appeal from the determination of the amount of the excessive profits, merely found the excessive profits to be $6,300.00, but said nothing about interest, no interest can now be *651 collected. There is no merit in this contention.

The Tax Court considered and decided only the amount of excessive profits. It did not consider, and had no right to consider the amount of interest, if any, due from defendant. It did not attempt to adjudicate the amount of the debt owing by the defendant to the government. See Greaves v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 1948, 10 T.C. 886 where the Tax Court said: “It is apparent from the foregoing that the jurisdiction of this 'Court is limited to the determination of the amount of excessive profits, if any. The amount of interest which the Board may collect, rightly or wrongly, is a measure of damages for the withholding of moneys which it determined to be due and owing to the United States, and is not excessive profits or an increase m the amount of excessive profits. This Court is without jurisdiction, therefore, to decide whether the assessment and collection of interest by the Board on defaulted refunds of excessive profits is authorized.”

An order may be entered in accordance with this opinion.

. The Under Secretary of War, by letter dated December 19, 1944, demanded payment on or before December 22, 1944, of the excessive profits.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1951: 21953: 11954: 119512026peak 1951 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Ring Const. Co.113 F. Supp. 217 (D. Minnesota 1953)
  2. United States v. Philmac Mfg192 F.2d 517 (3d Cir. 1951)
  3. Ring Const. Corp. v. United States United States v. Ring Const. Corp209 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1954)
  4. United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc.99 F. Supp. 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)

Most recent

  1. Ring Const. Corp. v. United States United States v. Ring Const. Corp209 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1954)
  2. United States v. Ring Const. Co.113 F. Supp. 217 (D. Minnesota 1953)
  3. United States v. Philmac Mfg192 F.2d 517 (3d Cir. 1951)
  4. United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc.99 F. Supp. 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Strontium Prods. Co., 68 F. Supp. 886 (W.D. Va. 1946) 8
Greaves v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Bd., 10 T.C. 886 (Tax Ct. 1948) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list