Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation v. United States of America, United States of America v. Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington Corporation

The dispute before us involves Weyerhaeuser’s federal income taxes for the calendar years 1954 through 1957. Weyerhaeuser filed claims for refund of a portion of the taxes paid for each of these years. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected the claims, and thereafter Weyerhaeuser brought suit in the District Court for recovery of the taxes which it claimed to have been collected erroneously. The District Court’s pretrial order divided the issues into two parts, “First Question Presented” and “Second Question Presented.” The two questions are unrelated both factually and legally. In the District Court the taxpayer prevailed on the “First Question” and the Government on the “Second.” Both Weyerhaeuser and the United States have appealed from the determination of the District Court adverse to their respective positions. The District Court’s jurisdiction rested upon 28 U.S.C. § 1346 . Ours is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

*622 No. 21,834

Weyerhaeuser’s appeal on the “Second Question Presented” challenges the District Court’s treatment of gains realized by Weyerhaeuser during the calendar years 1956 and 1957 from the cutting of timber.

Weyerhaeuser and Scott Paper Company 1…

(dissenting in part and concurring in part):

I regret that I cannot agree in the conclusion reached by my colleagues in cause 21,834.

Considered together, the agreements of the parties with each other and with Mountain Tree provide that Weyerhaeuser and Scott are to be equal partners in harvesting the timber. Part of the advantage to be shared is the appreciation in the value of the timber. Indirectly, I conclude, this must include section 631(a) benefits.

The intended efficiency of the joint logging operation would be defeated if Mountain Tree was required to cut precisely half the timber from each party’s tract each year. That was the reason for the provision in the contract for equalization payments. I interpret the agreement to provide that Mountain Tree was not the agent of either party. Mountain Tree, obviously, could not claim 631(a) benefits since it did not have unlimited rights to dispose of the cut timber. Its function was to deliver, as nearly as possible, equal shares of the harvest to Scott and Weyerhaeuser. In this context, Mountain Tree must have been acting for both parties when it cut the trees, irrespective of which party “owned” the timber. Equalization of…

402 F.2d 620 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, a Washington Corporation, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, a Washington Corporation, Appellee. No. 21834. No. 21834-A. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. October 22, 1968. As Amended November 22, 1968. John T. Piper (argued), G. Perrin Walker, Daniel C. Smith, Snyder J. King, Tacoma, Wash., for appellant. Grant Wiprud (argued), Lee A. Jackson, Dept. of Justice, Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C.; Eugene G. Cushing, U. S. Atty., Tacoma, Wash., for appellee. Before HAMLEY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT, District Judge. ELY, Circuit Judge: 1 The dispute before us involves Weyerhaeuser's federal income taxes for the calendar years 1954 through 1957. Weyerhaeuser filed claims for refund of a portion of the taxes paid for each of these years. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected the claims, and thereafter Weyerhaeuser brought suit in the District Court for recovery of the taxes which it claimed to have been collected erroneously. The District Court's pretrial order divided the issues into two parts, "First Question…