Court Opinion

ID: 4496445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-23 18:14:52.30063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:14.499520
License: Public Domain

Morris,
dissenting: I disagree with the majority in holding that the petitioner realized taxable income of $39,596.93 as a result of the composition settlement. I am unable to distinguish the facts in this proceeding from those in Dallas Transfer & Terminal Co. v. Commissioner, 70 Fed. (2d) 95, reversing 27 B. T. A. 651. The Board, in its opinion in that case, at page 657, pointed out that the taxpayer was solvent after the cancellation; therefore, in both cases the taxpayers were insolvent prior to the forgiveness and solvent thereafter. Under such circumstances the taxpayer does not always realize taxable income, a conclusion which, necessarily, follows from the majority opinion, but the facts of each case must be analyzed to ascertain whether there has been a gain or a profit. In the Dallas case the Board held, treating the transaction as a partial forgiveness of indebtedness, although deciding the case primarily on another theory, that taxable income was realized to the extent of the amount forgiven as assets were left cleared of debts to that extent. The reasoning of the court in reversing the Board and the distinction made by it between that case and United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U. S. 1, are equally applicable to the facts in this proceeding and make it unnecessary to extend this opinion. Based thereon, it is my opinion that the taxpayer did not realize any income as a result of the composition settlement. See also Commissioner v. Rail Joint Co., 61 Fed. (2d) 751; Burnet v. Campbell Co., 50 Fed. (2d) 487.
Smith, Van Fossan, and Disney agree with this dissent.