BICKETT COAL & COKE CO. v. UNITED STATES [67 C. Cls. 53; 280 U. S. 583] Petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court October 21, 1929. CHINNIS v. UNITED STATES [67 C. Cls. 262; 280 U. S. 593] Petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court October 21, 1929. SWEET, TRUSTEE, v. UNITED STATES [68 C. Cls. 109; 280 U. S. 598] Petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court November 4, 1929. HANNA, EXECUTOR, v. UNITED STATES [68 C. Cls. 45; 280 U. S. 612] Petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court January 27, 1930. NILES BEMENT POND CO. v. UNITED STATES [67 C. Cls. 693; 281 U. S. 357] Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. Findings by the Court of Claims that the controlling plan of a taxpayer's accounts was to show income upon an accrual basis and that its tax returns were on that basis are conclusive on review. 2. Under the revenue acts of 1916 and 1918, the commissioner may correct a return so as to reflect true income by conforming to the dominating and controlling character of the taxpayer's system of accounts. 3. In computing the net income of a domestic corporation keeping its books on the accrual basis, foreign taxes paid in the tax years should not be deducted if they accrued in prior years and their deduction in those years was necessary to ascertain true income. 4. It is to be presumed that taxes paid are rightly collected upon assessments correctly made by the commissioner; and in a suit to recover them the burden rests upon the taxpayer to prove all the facts necessary to establish the illegality of the collection. Mr. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 14, 1930. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. v. UNITED STATES [68 C. Cls. 273; 281 U. S. 385] Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: A telephone company, while under a standing written contract, made with the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the act of June 17, 1910, to furnish telephone equipment and service to the War Department, installed in a building especially constructed for it by the Government, an unusually large and very expensive switchboard to meet the growing needs of the department during the World War; and after the need was over and the switchboard had been removed, it sued under the Dent Act to recover the cost of installation less salvage. Held, upon the facts as found below: 1. That the switchboard was covered by the written contract, and that the conduct of the parties following installation was consistent with this view. 2. That a contract for extra pay was not to be implied either (a) from claims addressed to officials of the department having no authority to bind the Government and not assented to by them or known to their superiors; or (b) from the fact that the plans for the special building showing the switchboard and equipment proposed, were submitted to the Secretary of War; or (c) from the fact that the Government had continued to use the switchboard after the claims were made. Mr. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 5, 1930. INDEX DIGEST ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS. See Postal Savings; Taxes, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXVIII, AGENCY. XXXIX. See Conflict of Laws; Contracts, II; Sale of Supplies, III. See Settlement Contracts, I (2). APPROPRIATIONS. See Pay, II; Taxes, XIV. ARMY PAY. See Pay, I, II, IV; Rental and Subsistence Allowances, I, II. See Leases, II; Sale of Supplies, I (1), II, III, V; Taxes, X, XIV, BONDS. See Reformation of Contract; Statute of Limitations, I; Taxes, BONUS. See Pay, III. BURDEN OF PROOF. See Contracts, VII; Leases, I (1); Sale of Supplies, II; Taxes, III, L. CHARTER PARTY. See Eminent Domain, III. COMMUTATION OF QUARTERS, ETC. See Rental and Subsistence Allowances. CONFLICT OF LAWS. I. By section 124 of the national defense act Congress au- CONFLICT OF LAWS-Continued. certain surplus amount of the gross electric current pro- Id. IV. The immunity from taxation of the property and instru- VI. Where Congress has passed a statute authorizing the doing VII. Where Congress has so acted the action taken is in the VIII. An agency created by Congress as a means of exercising IX. Where an agency is created and all of the agent's prop- CONFLICT OF LAWS-Continued. X. The means and agencies which Congress may select for the XI. The power of the courts must be so exercised as to main- XII. Under the Constitution the United States has no author- CONSTITUTION. See Conflict of Laws; Taxes, XXV, XXVI, LII, LXIV. I. Where a Government contractor is suing for extra costs II. Plaintiff had a contract with an agent of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation operating |