▁of ▁corpor ations . ▁ ▁Much ▁of ▁the ▁language ▁defining ▁gross ▁income ▁in ▁that ▁law ▁has ▁been ▁retained ▁in ▁current ▁tax ▁law . ▁ ▁Thus , ▁court ▁dec isions ▁interpre ting ▁the ▁meaning ▁of ▁that ▁law ▁may ▁have ▁continu ing ▁relev ance . ▁ ▁Mitchell ▁B ros . ▁was ▁a ▁tim ber ▁producer ▁organized ▁in ▁ 1 9 0 3 . ▁ ▁Upon ▁passage ▁of ▁the ▁prede cess or ▁to ▁current ▁income ▁tax ▁law , ▁the ▁company ▁became ▁subject ▁to ▁tax ▁on ▁net ▁income . ▁ ▁Mitchell ▁B ros . ▁held ▁various ▁tim ber ▁lands ▁from ▁which ▁it ▁har v ested ▁tim ber . ▁ ▁After ▁har vest ing , ▁the ▁tim ber ▁and ▁land ▁would ▁be ▁sold ▁separately . ▁ ▁The ▁Court ▁addressed ▁questions ▁of ▁when ▁income ▁from ▁tim ber ▁was ▁to ▁be ▁included ▁in ▁tax able ▁income ▁and ▁how ▁tax able ▁income ▁from ▁sale ▁of ▁the ▁land ▁was ▁to ▁be ▁calculated . ▁ ▁Op in ion ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁On ▁the ▁gross ▁income ▁question , ▁the ▁Court ▁stated ▁in ▁paragraph ▁ 1 3 , ▁" In ▁order ▁to ▁determine ▁whether ▁there ▁has ▁been ▁gain ▁or ▁loss , ▁and ▁the ▁amount ▁of ▁the ▁gain ▁if ▁any , ▁we ▁must ▁withdraw ▁from ▁the ▁gross ▁proceed s ▁an ▁amount ▁sufficient ▁to ▁restore ▁the ▁capital ▁value ▁that ▁existed ▁at ▁the ▁comm enc ement ▁of ▁the ▁period ▁under ▁consideration ." ▁ ▁On ▁the ▁timing ▁question , ▁the ▁Court ▁found , ▁in ▁paragraph ▁ 1 7 , ▁that ▁the ▁mere ▁har vest ing ▁of ▁tim ber ▁did