Court Opinion

ID: 9419717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:51:11.890185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:20.133858
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Reed,
dissenting.
Accepting Helvering v. Northwest Steel Mills, 311 U. S. 46, completely, I am unable to agree that this contract with preferred stockholders was other than a “routine contract dealing with ordinary debts.” Certainly this is not an instance of a “statutory obligation,” which are the words used in the Northwest case to describe the antithesis of the contract covered. “Routine” and “ordinary,” as *431used in Northwest, do not imply to me anything more than an express contract, executed in accordance with §26 (c) (1).
The exemption provisions of § 26 (c) make no exceptions because the debt of the corporation is owned by a stockholder. If such an exception is to be deduced from the purpose behind the words of the section, it should not be applied to such preferred stockholders as these because their interest is like that of a creditor. As I believe the statutory requirements are met, I should reverse.1
The Chief Justice joins in this dissent.

 See in accord, Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v. Commissioner, 127 F. 2d 67; Budd International Corp. v. Commissioner, 143 F. 2d 784; Philadelphia Record Co. v. Commissioner, 145 F. 2d 613; Rex-Hanover Mills Co. v. United States, 53 F. Supp. 235. See Eljer Co. v. Commissioner, 134 F. 2d 251, 255.