Case Name: BANKERS MORTG. CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1944-03-10
Citations: 141 F.2d 357
Docket Number: No. 10821
Parties: BANKERS MORTG. CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Judges: Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 141
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
BANKERS MORTG. CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 10821.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 10, 1944.
Rehearing Denied April 26, 1944.
See 142 F.2d 130.
J. L. Lockett, of Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
Carlton Fox, Sewall Key, and Joseph M. Jones, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Bernard D. Daniels, Sp. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Tax Court held that the transaction between the taxpayer and the Humble Oil and Refining Company was a sale of mineral rights and not a loa'n and mortgage secured thereby. We concur. We do not see that any useful purpose would be served by an extended recitation of the details of the agreements between the taxpayer and the Oil Company. As in Griffiths v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 355, 60 S.Ct. 277, 278, 84 L.Ed. 319, the court, looking through form to substance, regards the situation as "a technically elegant arrangement whereby an intricate outward appearance was given to the simple sale" from the taxpayer to the Oil Company. The decision of the Tax Court is, therefore, affirmed both on the main issue and on the alternative contention that the taxpayer was entitled to depletion allowances.
Affirmed.