1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*35
1. Income from the sale of tangible property resulting from research and development,
2. Deductible interest on 1942 and 1943 income tax deficiencies which arose out of excess profits tax relief for same years,
33 T.C. 289">*289 Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's income and excess profits tax of $ 87,935.72, $ 220,260.07, and $ 261,682.44 for the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively. He disallowed petitioner's claim for refund of income and excess profits tax of $ 193,908.85 for the year 1951.
The issues to be decided are (1) whether petitioner received abnormal income within the meaning of
FINDINGS OF FACT.
The stipulated facts are1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*37 found.
Petitioner is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It filed an original return for 1951 with the collector of internal revenue for the district of Massachusetts. It filed an amended return for 1951 and original returns for 1952 and 1953 with the director of internal revenue, Boston, Massachusetts.
Petitioner was incorporated in 1937 and from that date to late in 1948 it engaged primarily in the business of research and development and the exploitation of research and development by manufacturing and selling a variety of optical products in the field of light polarization, such as polarizing sunglasses and visors, polarizing camera filters, polarizing day-driving visors, and variable density windows.
In 1952 and 1953, 3-dimensional (3-D) motion pictures were exhibited. The audience viewed the picture through viewers incorporating the Polaroid synthetic light polarizer which were necessary to give the 3-D illusion. Edwin H. Land, petitioner's president and director of research, invented the synthetic polarizer used in these viewers. Petitioner owned three patents which covered this polarizer, hereafter referred to as stereo. The 1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*38 exhibition of the 3-D motion pictures would not have been commercially practicable had petitioner's synthetic polarizer not been available. No noninfringing material for this purpose was on the market.
Petitioner's sales of stereo products during 1946 through 1950 were:
Year | Sales |
1946 | $ 25,141 |
1947 | 7,077 |
1948 | 55,867 |
1949 | 9,850 |
1950 | 15,385 |
Its sales, expenses, and net income from these sales in 1951, 1952, and 1953 were:
Year | Sales | Expenses | Net income |
1951 | $ 39,543 | $ 21,726 | $ 17,817 |
1952 | 85,443 | 82,558 | 2,885 |
1953 | 6,310,201 | 717,671 | 1,592,530 |
33 T.C. 289">*291 The expenses incurred by petitioner in the invention and development of its stereo products during 1943 through 1953 were:
Year | Expenses |
1943 | $ 60,695 |
1944 | 86,819 |
1945 | 172,640 |
1946 | 22,806 |
1947 | 9,040 |
1948 | |
1949 | |
1950 | 17,203 |
1951 | 22,773 |
1952 | 51,602 |
1953 | 143,953 |
Petitioner's income from the sales of stereo products during the years 1946 through 1953 was income from sales of tangible property arising out of research and development which extended over a period of more than 12 months.
On February 21, 1947, at a meeting of the Optical Society of America, Land first publicly1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*39 announced and demonstrated his invention of a camera and photographic film which produced a finished dry positive print directly from the camera within 60 seconds after the picture was snapped. The camera and photographic film are known respectively as the Polaroid Land camera and Polaroid Land picture roll, and together they constitute the Polaroid Land equipment. The Optical Society program referred to the equipment as "a new kind of photography as revolutionary as the transition from wet plates to daylight-loading film."
New basic principles of photographic processing were evolved by Land in his conception of the Polaroid Land equipment. There had never previously existed any photographic process in which a positive print was obtained simultaneously with the development of the negative by the application to the negative and positive receiving sheets of both the silver halide developer and the silver halide solvent. There had been no prior recognition of the possibility of simultaneously introducing the silver halide developer and the silver halide solvent and so controlling their intensitives and speed of operation that the developer could perform its function in the presence1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*40 of the solvent before the solvent could act upon the silver halide in the negative. The four separate steps in the prior art -- the developing and fixing of the negative and the printing and fixing of the positive -- were compressed in the Polaroid Land equipment into one step, the developing and fixing of the negative and contemporaneous formation on a positive sheet of a positive print from the dissolved silver halide of the negative. In the Polaroid Land picture roll all materials required for the developing and printing are part of the film assembly. The camera in which the film is processed remains dry throughout.
33 T.C. 289">*292 There were at least two major basic developments involved in the Polaroid Land equipment. One was a means by which high concentrations of developer and silver halide solvents were introduced simultaneously, after having been stored in a capsulating agent to keep them from oxidizing through contact with the air. The second was the process of catalyzing the precipitation of silver from the silver halide solvent onto the surface of the positive receiving sheet in such a way as to obtain a silver image with relatively minute quantities of silver.
Prior to1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*41 the conception of the Polaroid Land equipment, no photographic equipment existed whereby the picture was taken, the negative developed, and a positive print obtained directly from the camera by a 1-step dry process. Land's new inventions in photographic equipment were novel.
Petitioner's first patent in its "Picture in a Minute" field issued in 1948, and at the end of 1953, 118 patents had issued and 91 additional applications were pending. At the end of 1958, 238 patents had issued and 202 additional applications were pending. In 1954, the United States Patent Office created a separate subclass to handle, exclusively, patent applications in the Polaroid Land equipment field.
The Polaroid Land equipment was first marketed by petitioner in November 1948. The camera is not usable with any film other than the Polaroid Land picture roll and the picture roll is not usable with any camera other than the Polaroid Land camera. The photographic accessories marketed by petitioner, such as flashguns, light meters, filters, and copy makers, have been specifically designed for the Polaroid Land camera and have had no market apart from their use with that camera. There have been no products1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*42 on the market directly competitive with the Polaroid Land equipment since its introduction. In addition to its use in producing a picture in a minute, the Polaroid Land equipment is used to make instantaneous X-rays and in devices for the detection of the extent of exposure to radiation.
Petitioner's sales of Polaroid Land cameras, photographic packs, and photographic accessories during 1948 through 1950 were:
Year | Sales |
1948 | $ 39,155 |
1949 | 5,379,023 |
1950 | 5,057,908 |
33 T.C. 289">*293 Its sales, expenses, and net income from these sales in 1951, 1952, and 1953 were:
Year | Sales | Expenses | Net income |
1951 | $ 7,394,385 | $ 6,164,973 | $ 1,229,412 |
1952 | 11,076,969 | 9,611,657 | 1,465,312 |
1953 | 17,212,784 | 14,727,692 | 2,485,092 |
The expenses incurred by petitioner in the invention and development of Polaroid Land cameras, photographic packs, and photographic accessories during 1944 through 1953 were:
Year | Expenses |
1944 | $ 7,150 |
1945 | 96,943 |
1946 | 388,667 |
1947 | 300,369 |
1948 | 365,332 |
1949 | 267,425 |
1950 | 267,733 |
1951 | 143,986 |
1952 | 213,776 |
1953 | 243,936 |
No expenses were incurred by petitioner in the invention and development of Polaroid Land cameras, photographic1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*43 packs, or photographic accessories prior to 1944.
The sales of the Polaroid Land equipment during the years 1948 through 1953 resulted entirely from its capacity to produce a picture in a minute. If this equipment had not made an instantaneous positive print there would have been no demand for the camera or photographic pack during that period.
Petitioner's income from the sales of the Polaroid Land equipment and photographic accessories during 1948 through 1953 was income from the sales of tangible property arising out of research and development which extended over a period of more than 12 months.
The income received by petitioner in 1951, 1952, and 1953 from the sales of stereo products and the Polaroid Land equipment and accessories does not constitute abnormal income under
In 1951, petitioner's claims for relief under
OPINION.
The issues in this case are essentially questions of statutory construction. Respondent does not dispute the facts produced by petitioner.
33 T.C. 289">*294 The income 1 which petitioner contends is abnormal under
1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*46 Basically, the Korean War excess profits tax was patterned after the World War II excess profits tax. There was, however, a general attempt to simplify the administration of the tax and to eliminate potential inequities. The World War II tax described one class of abnormal income as follows:
33 T.C. 289">*295 SEC. 721 [
(a) Definitions. -- For the purposes of this section -- * * * * (2) Separate classes of income. -- Each of the following subparagraphs shall be held to describe a separate class of income: * * * * (C) Income resulting from exploration, discovery, prospecting, research, or development of tangible property, patents, formulae, or processes, or any combination of the foregoing, extending over a period of more than 12 months; or
The equivalent provision in the World War II law (sec. 721) also permitted adjustments with reference to certain other types of income, particularly that
Petitioner contends that its income is "otherwise properly includible within a class of income to which * * *
But Congress intentionally excluded income from the sale of property resulting from research, whether or not constituting invention, as a potential class of abnormal income when it enacted
1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*50 Petitioner further contends that although its income may not fall within one of the classes enumerated in
1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*51 The second issue is whether the interest with which petitioner was credited in 1951 upon its successful claim for an excess profits tax refund, and which was admittedly abnormal income, must be reduced 33 T.C. 289">*297 in computing petitioner's net abnormal income under
1959 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 35">*52 Although the corporate income tax and the excess profits tax are separate and distinct types of taxes,
It is not necessary to say that income tax and excess profits tax are not different taxes in order to say that they are "related." Computation of one is reciprocal to that of the other, and it is this arithmetic relationship which led automatically and inevitably to the deficiency in income tax upon reduction of and determination of overassessment in the excess profits tax.
Interest on the one was due to the petitioner by reason of the same fact that caused interest on the other to be due from petitioner, namely, allowance of petitioner's claim under
1. The parties have drawn no distinction between the income earned from the sales of the Polaroid Land equipment and that earned from the sales of the stereo products. Accordingly, we treat them as being similar in nature for purposes of this issue.↩
2.
(a) Definitions. -- For the purposes of this section -- (1) Abnormal income. -- The term "abnormal income" means income of any class described in paragraph (2) includible in the gross income of the taxpayer for any taxable year under this subchapter if * * * the taxpayer normally derives income of such class but the amount of such income of such class includible in the gross income of the taxable year is in excess of 115 per centum of the average amount of the gross income of the same class for the four previous taxable years * * * (2) Separate classes of income. -- Each of the following subparagraphs shall be held to describe a separate class of income: (A) Income arising out of a claim, award, judgment, or decree, or interest on any of the foregoing; or (B) Income resulting from exploration, discovery, or prospecting, or any combination of the foregoing, extending over a period of more than 12 months; or (C) Income from the sale of patents, formulae, or processes, or any combination of the foregoing, developed over a period of more than 12 months; or (D) Income includible in gross income for the taxable year rather than for a different taxable year by reason of a change in the taxpayer's method of accounting. All the income which is classifiable in more than one of such subparagraphs shall be classified under the one which the taxpayer irrevocably elects. The classification of income of any class not described in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, shall be subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.↩
3. Petitioner cannot and does not deny this, but insists that the "tangible" properties would have been valueless except for the process they embodied. This seems to us irrelevant.↩
4. Regs. 130. Sec. 40.456-2. [As amended by
Classification of income. * * *
(b) Other income, not within a class described in subparagraphs (A)-(D) of
5. "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines 'exploration' as '[act] of exploring, as for geographical discovery,' and in discussing the word 'discover' the same work says: 'Discover presupposes exploration * * *.' It also defines 'discovery' as '1. Act of discovering,' and the verb 'prospect' as '[to] explore or examine for something.' We consider that Congress in using the words 'exploration, discovery, or prospecting' meant acts leading up to and antedating the finding of the thing discovered, which in this case, according to the hypothesis made by both parties, was the oil pool here in question. A factor leading us to this conclusion is the deliberate omission by Congress in enacting
6. See footnote 4,
7.
(a) Definitions. -- For the purposes of this section -- * * * * (3) Net abnormal income. -- The term "net abnormal income" means the amount of the abnormal income less, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, * * * (B) an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of any costs or deductions relating to such abnormal income, allowable in determining the normal-tax net income for the taxable year, as the excess of the amount of such abnormal income over 115 per centum of such average amount bears to the amount of such abnormal income.↩