dis-~ long in difficulties some course, of are, There tenee exchanges of this sort but it is the only practical way that I know of proceeding. We would, of courses, neturally Like to have you and Mr. Baxter here for our confcrences with Mr. Zimmerman but a8 they may: ¢ontinue over se period of time that may not be preessoe?> in the event, however, that the or less final eonferenes demore s that so up shapes matter vealops, it will be atvisablse for one or both of you to come here and attend. In your letter of August 1Oth you stated that example "(a)"™, set out in Mr, Russell's letter of August 5th, will be used by Remington as a tax besis. This shows the net price to Browning of £28.60, while in your letter of October 25rd you stated that the net price bo Brownine will be 225.76. Apparently the reduced figure used . your letter of October 23rd resulte from the sliminetion of the 11% exelse tex included in Mr... Russell's letter of aainae oth. tn view of this differenes and the fact that you etated in -vour letter of Oetober 23rd that you are repeating a prior State ment, I think it might be helpful if you will advise us which one we should use. In of your letter of October arms sold during the which were conveyed the om n 1932." I understand 25rd you stated: “Home post-suilt period were anong Arms Company to the the by that }Hirt. Bexter is having parent the office at St. Louis @ive uS an analysis of these saies to show those thet were imported by the parent company and those which wers sold from the inventory ourehased in 1932 analysis the suit We hope this prepared for In view of the decisions in Campana 404 COHN Ve9642, Bour ois, inc. Harrison and 610, £4) Fed inc. Son, & Albrecht as complete as will be period. Milis Mr. that Ve &5 Corporation ¥. MeGowan , Landry, v. 114 (24) 202, it has occurred to me that itt mignt de adred. Visable to have ur. Baxter propare for our use a statement showing the reductions in the tax ba sé: that would result elimination of advertising and selling costs, in to the transportation itens which we are already from the ediition me that if such a statement It has o¢curred to of items excludible from the base within the Albrecht and Cempans decisions, the in- formation micht prove the Government in jobbers’ price declared value contesting. weuad tax « show them adopt scale as a It has amount sufficient pareuasive to the Renington-t iavage-Browning basis for tax liability. also ee the shotauns at the time gome evidence in proving to they fair me that the were imported market value. having of might be of These declared