From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Psaty Fuhrman v. Stimson

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 22, 1950
182 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 10156.

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.


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. The petition must, therefore, be

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.

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Psaty Fuhrman v. Stimson

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 22, 1950
182 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Case details for

Psaty Fuhrman v. Stimson

Case Details

Full title:PSATY FUHRMAN, Inc., v. STIMSON, Secretary of War, et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 22, 1950

Citations

182 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
87 U.S. App. D.C. 47

Citing Cases

U.S. v. California Eastern Line

U.S. Electrical Motors, Inc. v. Jones, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 153 F.2d 134.Psaty Fuhrman, Inc. v. Stimson, 87…

United States v. Scandia Mfg. Co.

Where there is an appeal to the Tax Court, that court has exclusive and final jurisdiction if the question is…