Court Opinion

ID: 9482306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:46:12.231863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:53.770345
License: Public Domain

COHN, District Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. No useful purpose will be served by any extended discussion of my reasons for my disagreement with the majority opinion. It is sufficient for me to say that Section 465’s “at risk” requirement looks to a realistic possibility that the taxpayer may be required to make good on the partial recourse note involved here. The majority’s rather elaborate analysis does not persuade me that is the situation here. Baldwin v. United States, 904 F.2d 477 (9th Cir.1990), supports my conclusion. In short, the circular sale-leaseback transaction at issue in this case removed any realistic possibility that the investors would suffer an economic loss.