Court Opinion

ID: 9444149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:43:31.508401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:44.388968
License: Public Domain

*438POPE, Circuit Judge.
I concur. Appellant argues that this case is not governed by the Sam Schnitzer case, 13 T.C. 43, affirmed by this court at 183 F.2d 70, because here appellant’s payment was not to Oregon Steel, but to Alaska Junk. Hence, he says, it could not be a contribution to the former’s capital, particularly since he did not pay it until after his stock was sold. I think the Tax Court could properly view the transaction as one in which, pursuant to understanding, Alaska first made the advances, as contributions, on appellant’s behalf, and appellant’s payments were merely to reimburse Alaska. This finding of the Tax Court cannot be disturbed by us.