McLaughlin

Alleging that defendant exacted excessive taxes for 1919, plaintiff seeks to recover them. The issues are few and simple, though is involved that more or less nightmare, the Revenue Act of 1918 ( 40 Stat. 1057 ). There is no conflict in the evidence; defendant presenting none, and merely submitting whether plaintiff’s suffices to prove the essential facts. As the latter arc fully established by credible witnesses, plaintiff’s hooks, and defendant’s records, tho court finds accordingly.

It appears that in January, 1918, plaintiff purchased all tho assets of two other corporations, going concerns in the wholesale hardware trade, therefor paying its own capital stock and other consideration, in amount some $998,555.02, more than tho assets had cost the vendors. At all material times the latter retained said capital stock and in equal shares. During 1918 and in due course of business, plaintiff “turned over” the stock in trade nearly twice, therein selling all but about 5 per cent, of that received from tho said vendors. In consequence, and January 1, 1919, the stock in trade, main *190 tained by new and replacement items, had increased in cost to plaintiff some $739,942.31. This…