[PW] Planet question

[Fuller, Thomas (US - Washington D.C.)]

OK, I have to post this even though only tangentially related to the
original query.  The "cookie" analogy to the planet question has in fact
been addressed and decided in Federal court.  I know, because I was the
young law clerk who drafted the opinion, and it was the only case in
which my judge (Wilson Cowen) allowed one of my many proposed jokes to
make it into the final version.

There was a Federal wheat subsidy program that expired on a certain
date, and allowed credit for all "food products processed from wheat" in
inventory on that date.  The Department of Agriculture ruled that
"cookies, crackers, and snacks" were not "processed from wheat", because
they were processed from flour, itself a food product.  Nabisco
challenged this ruling.  They lost.

One of their arguments was the the cookies could be "turned back into"
wheat.  Here's what the court had to say -- agreeing with the argument,
but eventually supporting the Government's line- drawing:

<The parties have devoted a considerable amount of argument to comparing
the Department's treatment of Nabisco's cookies, crackers, and snacks
with its treatment  of self-rising flour, breakfast cereals, dry cake
mixes, and dry cookie mixes. These foods, all of which consist of wheat
flour mixed with various other ingredients, were classified as "food
products processed from wheat" by the Department and certificate refunds
were granted without question. The Government has attempted to justify
this treatment on various grounds, none of which is wholly convincing.
The Government first attempted to show that the flour in these products
was chemically recoverable, while the flour in cookies, crackers, and
snacks was not; even if this were true (and the plaintiff argues that it
is not), it is clear from the record that no chemists or other
scientists took part in the decision to allow or disallow refunds on
these products. In any case, the chemical recovery of the flour is of
doubtful relevance to the Congressional intent to aid bakers by lowering
flour prices. The Government also argues that the flour in the dry mixes
was granular, but the flour in cookies, crackers, and snacks was not.
Nabisco showed that the granular nature of the mixes was physically
unrelated to the granular nature of flour, so the Government's attempt
to classify refundable food products according to "the way the cookie
crumbles" is also unpersuasive.>

NABISCO, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES,  220 Ct. Cl. 332, 599 F.2d 415
(1979).

-- Tom 

*****Any tax advice included in this written or electronic communication was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by any governmental taxing authority or agency***** 


This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message.  Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. [v.T.1]