Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION,

Lowell, Mass.

WARREN H. SHERMAN, M. D.,

Lowell, Mass., November 9, 1937.

On June 15, 1937, Barbara Healy was hit on right side of head by a baseball bat. She received a depressed comminuted fracture of the skull, one of the cracks going through the petrous portion of the bone, with rupture of the ear drum and hemorrhage from the middle ear. She has recovered to quite an extent, but I have advised her not to return to school for a year.

WARREN H. SHERMAN, M. D.

In Re: H. R. 10104.

APRIL 15, 1938.

I am submitting the expenses incurred as the result of the accident to my daughter, Barbara Healy, injured June 15, 1937, and on account of same was unable to attend high school, but we intend to start her in September 1938. Expenses:

Dr. W. H. Sherman (to date).

Dr. Archibald Gardner__

St. Joseph's Hospital.

Ambulance service..

Transportation in connection with accident.

Total.

Home expenses:

Hospital bed (rented).

Mattress and bedding.

Day bed...

Ice bag

Bed pan---.

Eye specialist, Dr. Brendan Leahey.

Grape juice, rubbing alcohol, and ice, no record kept..
Teeth, estimated..

Total_

$200. 00

20.00

97.00

5.00

4.00

326. 00

15.00

20.00

25.00

2.00

1.50

15.00

30.00

108. 50

JAMES B. HEALY.

[blocks in formation]

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of April 1938. [SEAL]

ARNOLD A. BYAM, Notary Public.

LOWELL, Mass., April 27, 1940.

Hon. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MRS. ROGERS: At the request of Mr. James B. Healy of 267 Walker Street, Lowell, Mass., I have obtained a copy of the report of the city solicitor with reference to the Walker Street Playground, which copy I herewith enclose. With reference to information requested in your letter to Mr. Healy under date of April 20, 1940, I am informed that the playground is owned by the Lowell Gas Light Co., and was not then and is not now an authorized ball field and ball park of the city of Lowell. The gas company allows the city to use it for this W. P. A. project.

I am also informed by Mr. Healy that at the time his daughter was injured, she had just crossed the street from her home to talk to some other girls on the other side and also to watch the game; that she had reached the sidewalk, and was talking to these girls, and had not yet had any opportunity to watch the game when she was injured.

I trust this information conforms with your desires, and I also hope that you will do everything in your power to have the bill successfully passed.

Sincerely yours,

P. HAROLD READY.

JOHN W. KERNAN,

Superintendent, Park Department, City Hall, Lowell, Mass.

APRIL 13, 1940.

DEAR MR. KERNAN: In reply to your letter of April 10, with reference to your inquiry relative to a proposed playground on Walker Street, I wish to state that it is my opinion that there is no liability on the part of the city of Lowell, and in rendering this opinion I have not only considered what you have set forth in your letter but I have read the letter that was enclosed with your letter.

By the enclosed letter it appears that Mrs. Rogers is seeking certain information from Mr. Healy to aid in having special legislation sponsored for the purpose of paying a claim because of injury sustained by his daughters, but as to the facts requested I am not in any position to aid you for there is no record, as I understand it, of the case in this office.

I trust that the foregoing answers your inquiry, but if there is anything further you desire from me concerning this matter you are at liberty to call upon me. Very truly yours,

HUBERT L. MCLAUGHLIN, City Solicitor.

O

79TH CONGRESS 1st Session

FEBRUARY

}

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

{

REPORT
No. 88

THE CUBAN-AMERICAN SUGAR CO.

1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. McGEHEE, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 1239]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1239) conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims of the United States to consider and render judgment on the claim of the CubanAmerican Sugar Co. against the United States, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

A similar bill was favorably reported by this committee in the Seventy-eighth Congress.

The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 85, Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part

of this report.

[H. Rept. No. 85, 78th Cong., 1st sess.j

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment on the claim of the CubanAmerican Sugar Co. for the refund of taxes erroneously and illegally assessed and collected as excess-profits taxes for the period from January 1, 1917, to September 30, 1917. Section 2 provides that the Court of Claims shall not avail itself of the defense that the General Counsel for the Bureau of Internal Revenue acted without legal authority in making such stipulation of settlement. Section 3 provides that suit may be instituted at any time within 6 months after the date of enactment of this act, notwithstanding the lapse of time, laches, the form or any content, or the time of filing of claims for the refund and alleged amendments

thereto.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Your committee, before reciting, for the information of the House, the facts of this case, wish to call to its attention that the accrual date of this claim is not September 30, 1917, the period for which tax refund is asked, but May 1, 1939, the date the case was dismissed by the Court of Claims, for the reason that the statute of limitations had run against them.

The Cuban-American Sugar Co. was organized in 1906, immediately thereafter acquiring the outstanding capital stock of the Chaparra Sugar Co., the Tinguara Sugar Co., the Cuban Sugar Refining Co., the Unidad Sugar Co., and the Mercedita Sugar Co. In May 1908, the Cuban-American Sugar Co. acquired the capital stock and bonds of the Colonial Sugar Co.; in 1909, it acquired the capital stock of the San Manuel Sugar Co.; in the year 1910, the Chaparra Railroad Co. was formed and its capital stock acquired. Most of the companies in the group were engaged in the growing and production of raw sugar. In addition to the growing

of sugarcane with the assistance of their own hired labor, the taxpayers entered into contracts with local planters for the growing of sugarcane. The taxpayers financed to a large extent the operations of the local planters. Loans would be extended from time to time in increasing amounts with the progress of each crop until a maximum was reached at harvest time. To finance their crops and those of the local planters, the taxpayers made extensive borrowings during each growing season.

The gross income of the taxpayers was derived primarily from the growing and production of raw sugar. Other income was derived from interest and rentals. The principal deductions claimed were for ordinary and necessary expenses, repairs, interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of war facilities.

The Cuban-American Sugar Co. filed income and excess-profits tax returns for its fiscal year, January 1, 1917, to September 30, 1917, for itself and subsidiaries on March 30, 1918, shortly after Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1917, which, for the first time, imposed excess-profits and war-profits taxes and before there had been any decisions or interpretation of the meaning of the act, and there was much confusion among taxpayers and Treasury officials concerning its application.

These returns showed the consolidated invested capital of the companies as $26,774,367.90, its excess-profits taxes as $1,975,180.94, and a total income and excess-profits taxes for the period of $2,306,928.74.

Shortly thereafter it filed amended income and excess-profits tax returns for the same period, showing a consolidated invested capital of $24,314,160.57 and $1,949,577.21 as its excess-profits taxes for the period. At the time of filing the amended returns, the company filed two abatement claims and a claim for refund of excess-profits taxes overpaid in the amount of $24,058.88, or such other amount as was legally refundable. This claim was based on the grounds that the invested capital was more than that shown in the original return. Thereafter the returns were audited and considered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the claimant submitted data and evidence pertaining thereto and had numerous conferences with the representatives of the Commissioner relative to the proper amount of tax due from the claimant.

Thereafter, on January 3, 1921, the Commissioner advised the claimant by letter, containing extensive schedules, showing his audit of the taxpayer's returns and determination of the amount of taxes due. These schedules of the Commissioner showed a consolidated invested capital for the year 1917 of $28,848,530.85 and excess-profits taxes due of $1,729,541.41, resulting in an overassessment in income and excess-profits taxes for the period of $231,729.55 and an overpayment of $131,554.65. The Commissioner never abated, credited, nor refunded the amount of the overassessment or overpayment to the claimant, although refund claims were on file, which claim was never allowed or rejected by the Commissioner.

Thereafter the claimant, feeling that its taxes had been greatly overpaid for the period in question, and that the determination of the Commissioner of January 3, 1931, was in excess of the taxes properly due, requested the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to compute its taxes under the relief provisions of section 210 of the Revenue Act of 1917, on the basis that the excess-profits taxes determined

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »