Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Brown Shoe Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

Second, we must decide whether in computing petitioner's invested capital credit the aggregate value of the assets transferred by the community groups may be included in equity invested capital under § 718 (a) of the Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 718 (a) , either as a 'contribution to capital' or as 'accumulated earnings and profits.' [3]
Petitioner is a New York corporation which at all times material conducted manufacturing operations in a number of plants located in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Tennessee.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Brown Shoe Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

However, contributions to capital account from outsiders are often thought of as contributed or donated capital surplus rather than as paid-in surplus, see e.g., Hoagland, Corporation Finance 555 (3d Ed.1947) ; we think that for this reason among others Congress added the term 'contribution to capital' to the excess profits tax provisions of the 1940 Act, as it had to the Revenue Acts (§ 113 (a) (8) ) since 1932, to indicate that contributions from outsiders intended as additions to capital should be included in the computation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Brown Shoe Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…

The issues arise from the payment of cash and the transfer of other property to petitioner by certain community groups as an inducement to the location or expansion of petitioner's factory operations in the communities. Petitioner claimed, and the Commissioner disallowed, (1) a deduction from gross income for depreciation on the property contributed and on the full cost of property acquired in part with contributed cash or equivalent funds, and (2) inclusion of the total value of the contributions in petitioner's equity invested capital.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature