The in our case, court said statute but still in that case was the tax was levied thet the transaction sale at all different between on the a from that sale, parent The and sub-+ sidiary, “was no statute, and think, mark the Company lf it should sell the the white tax to be measured Cun the be only one regulations corporation, case was which by the price of the incidence obtained by cars, There taxable sale and the statute and fixed the sale by the affiitated or selling agent, as the taxable the taxpayer, our case. sale < manufacturer.” Judgement wes Ho problem such diatinguished we contemplation we the the the not, of by within did shail itn entered for arises in in Pickwick case, Supp. 670, discuss, where later the White White the 21 Feds The Case the it is saids subsidiary corporation as agent of the clear that the case did the sale made by Was a mere sales agent of its parent. The autemoblles there involved were to be re«# sold by the subsidiary manufacturer, ™ Lt not a involve seems the corporation to us validity to ite acuite and effect of parent subsidiary. Le tT. Piver, Ine., vs. Hoey, Collector, Ua Sy D, Cy Ba Ze April 28, i19c6, 1986 Prentice-Hall Federal Tax Service, ternal paragraph 5,626, This an Revenue wag to action recover against a manufacturer's Collector of excise texes Ine