Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc., v. Stimson, Secretary of War, et al
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 182 F.2d 985
Submitted May 15, 1950 Decided May 22, 1950
Mr. David Morgulas, Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for petitioner.
Mr. Harland F. Leathers, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Assistant Attorney General H. G. Morison and Mr. Newell A. Clapp, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, submitted on the brief, for respondents.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, on March 16, 1942, entered into a contract with the Government for the construction of a hospital. The Secretary of War renegotiated the contract on a completed contract basis and, on February 7, 1944, made a unilateral determination that petitioner had excessive profits of $700,000. Petitioner applied to the Tax Court for a determination that the renegotiation of its contract must be upon a fiscal (which in this case was calendar) year basis. The Tax Court supported the Secretary.
It is now settled that a question such as the one here before us, being neither constitutional nor jurisdictional, is one which the Tax Court under the statute, 50 U.S.C. A.Appendix § 1191, has exclusive and final jurisdiction to determine.1 The petition must, therefore, be
Dismissed.
Lichter v. United States, 1948, 334 U.S. 742, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 92 L.Ed. 1694; Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 1947, 331 U.S. 752, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 91 L.Ed. 1796; Macauley v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 1946, 327 U.S. 540, 66 S.Ct. 712, 90 L.Ed. 839; Ring Const. Corporation v. Secretary of War of U. S., 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 178 F.2d 714, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 943, 70 S. Ct. 796; Eastern Machinery Company v. Under Secretary of War, 1950, 86 U.S. App.D.C. ___, 182 F.2d 99; Blanchard Mach. Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 177 F. 2d 727, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 912, 70 S.Ct. 571; U. S. Electrical Motors v. Jones, 1946, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 153 F.2d 134