"door as nor in the neretofore telephone book, and the by the person or persons. appears same of overhead’ item a charge Laboratories, to on the This mixing was <A plaintiff's books item a included done "‘*shere as share of ‘office salaries! tempted explanation, which, it appeared from the at~— covered salaries of officers of both companies, plaintiff made sales The independentof the claims that Laboratories pleintiff, Four items of this character appesred on its books, Their origin could not be accounted for. They were billed and collected by the plaintiff which also delivered the merchandise, tI am unable to detect any mark of these sales indicating thet they were different in character from all of the pleintiff's sales, In the same individual, as Viee President reised the price of the sales that had December, 1945, of Laboratories, occurred during the by previcus eight months to plaintiff the arbitrary figure of 65% and, as Vice President of plaintiff, accepted this retroactive increase and paid a tax on a computation that ineluded it, "Plaintiff demands as tax under the tax assessed (U.S.C.A. Section Title the return 604 of the 1481) ~- it actually the period from 26—-See, for of all Revenue money Aet of paid 1952 paid oe pret 4 1, 1925, to July1, 1986 ~~ becatuse it says it is & manu facturer at ali, 1t owns the trade lg pe trade hames which It says are the most effective and attractive elements in the sele te the publie of cosmetics and perfumes, It Laboratories costs which, anc carries the in the cosmetic the the pays value which of to the of article, the product materials to Laboratories end sells an amount fixed by Parfumerie, There was manufacturer of cosmetics could charging for his preduct a cost of materiels entering RWith the the plaintiff(ts products of of 411 sales greatly exceed for it bottles ef burden trade, manufactured Laboratories cost bottles of Piaintiff Laboratories ecual to 290% which is teatimony that a make a profit by eum equal te twice the inte their manufacture, conten tt on this court cannot agree, if it is not a manufacturer 1t may not, of course, be taxed under { section 606 of the Revenue Act of 1942, Toe decide whether it is or is not, the court must consider not sc much what the plaintiff does as wnat Laboratories does or fails to Go, To find the court must give plaintiff not the manufacturer, the wnideserved respect to the trans~ parent form corporate reality. Where, as tion is constituted utterly lacking cbjective here, the capital of a corporaof a book entry of a parent