Court Opinion

ID: 9636443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:29:04.356761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:46.008859
License: Public Domain

LEE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in that part of the opinion which allows the carry-back for the year 1943 and dissent from that part of the opinion which denies the carry-back for the year 1944.
At the end of the year 1943, the corporation had substantial assets, namely, postwar refunds of excess profits tax in the sum of $31,230.83. In view of this fact, its failure to liquidate entirely within the year 1943 is explained, and the reason pertinent to a continuation of the liquidation through the year 1944 is made apparent. The case in this respect is somewhat like our decision in United States v. Kingman, 5 Cir., 170 F. 2d 408, where we held that the existence :of postwar claims’ was sufficient cause for continuing liquidation; and I am of the opinion that a denial of th.e carry-back for the year 1944, in view of the facts referred to, creates a conflict between this case and the Kingman case. Strange to say, while the Commissioner stresses the point that liquidation in 1944 was wholly unnecessary, no fact was developed to which our attention was called that would dispense with the situation hereinabove referred to.