Court Opinion

ID: 9444163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:44:00.556538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:44.723434
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I am of the clear opinion that the facts of this case are in substance the same as those in Helvering v. Alabama As-phaltic Limestone Co., 315 U.S. 179, 62 S.Ct. 540, and that the principles laid down and applied in the series of cases decided by the Supreme Court in its October term, 1941,1 require the affirmance instead of the reversal of the district court’s opinion and decision.
As clearly and correctly pointed out in the opinion of the district court, the controlling, the determining question in this case is whether there is present here the one decisive fact which, present in the Bondholders’ case, differentiated it from the Limestone case, and required a different decision. In the Bondholders’ case, the Supreme Court stated [315 U.S. 189, 62 S.Ct. 539]:
“For the reasons stated in Hel-vering v. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co., supra, this transaction clearly would have been a ‘reorganization’ within the meaning of § 112 (i) (1) but for one fact. That fact is that the property was not acquired by the committee or the new corporation from Marlborough Investment Co. In December, 1928, several years prior to the insolvency reorganization, Marlborough Investment Co., the issuer of the bonds, had transferred the property to another corporation. As a result of mesne conveyances the property was held in May, 1932 by State Developers, Inc. and one Cooley. While the foreclosure proceedings were pending that corporation and Cooley executed and delivered a quit claim deed to the property in consideration of the payment of the cash sum of $10,025, which was furnished by the committee.
“In view of these circumstances there was no ‘reorganization’ within the meaning of § 112(i)(l). & * -x->>
Since this “one fact”, “these circumstances,” detailed above and relied on for differentiating the Bondholders’ case from the Limestone case, cannot be *702found in this record, search it as one will, I am constrained to hold that “for the reasons stated in Helvering v. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co., supra, this transaction clearly” is “a ‘reorganization’ within the meaning of § 112(i) (D”.
I respectfully dissent.

. Helvering v. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co., supra; Palm Springs Holding Corp. v. Commissioner, 315 U.S. 185, 62 S.Ct. 544: Bondholders Committee v. Commissioner, 315 U.S. 189, 62 S.Ct. 537.