In the conference yesterday the writer was informed that the Bureau requested the Chief Counsel to reconsider his previous rulings in this ease because of their inportance as a precedent. 1t is submitted, however, that if a lump sum settlement were agreed upon it would constitute no precedent at all. Furthermore, the offer pending in the Bureau should be treated as a part of a proposed general settlement which includes the pending suit. One of the principal general settlement for both payer is in effect yielding involving be noted, the bona rides too, that.as.a considerations justifying the periods is the fact that the tazxthe principal issue in the suit of the result inventory transfer. of these two offers payer has admitted a tax liability sales meade in both the suit and in respect post-suit to all it the will tax- of the periods. so In determining the amount of the offer in the suit period the taxpayer, for settlement purposes, computed the tax on the major portion of the sales on the basisof the actual invoice price of Browning Arms to retail dealers. in the post-suit period nearly 5% of the sales, representing those made from the original inventory transfer, have been likewise treated mont their vyolces to retail for both periods and It as taxable dealers. were made approval should be on wlll pointed the basis in no way of the actual in- Thus, from every angle, the offers by way of compromise and settie~-~ out, too, establish a that in no — precedent. event can a settlement of this case be considered as a precedent in the determination of the excise tax liability of either Browning Arms Company or Jd. M. andM. &. Browning Company for years subsequent to June 30, 1940, the end of the period here in question. Since June 50, 1940, neither the Srowning Arms Company, nor Jd. M. and M. & Browning Company, have manufactured or imported shotguns. ranged Beginning in July, 1940, the Browning to shotguns needed to supply now the Remington is not obtain Arms the Company which buyer from only is Remington. Arms their Company trade manufacturer. Thus the ar- from the Browning shotguns sold by Browning, Remington and Savage are not only competitive but they are all of the same basic Browning design. Since the Brownings no longer import shotguns but purchase their requirements from Remington, the excise tax is paid by Remington as the manufacturer. B. Albrecht The decision for applying & Son, the of the Eighth inc. v. Circuit Landy, 114 tax in this case Court FP.{2) of Appeals 2, to the average is in authority price for