Court Opinion

ID: 9452135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:31:16.820906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:05.071367
License: Public Domain

STALEY, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority opinion. The disposition of this appeal revolves about the construction we give to the language of our earlier opinion in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pennroad Corp., 228 F.2d 329 (C.A.3, 1955). The majority is content to state that “a proper allocation would have been pointless for the purposes of that case” and “neither our ruling, nor our language read in its context, in any way precluded an allocation of the lump sum settlement in the present case * * *.”
With this I cannot agree. In Penn-road we held that “under "the circumstances at bar, Pennroad was entitled to the restoration of its capital before the principle of allocation could become applicable.” 228 F.2d at 332. Insofar as I am concerned, this is the law of the case, and it should remain undisturbed unless there is a clear instance of previous error from which injustice may result. See White v. Higgens, 116 F.2d 312, 317 (C.A.1, 1940).
There has been no showing that the entire settlement was used for the restoration of capital, as our previous opinion requires, before there may be an allocation. Nor has there been any showing that our opinion in Pennroad is clearly erroneous or that injustice may result. The majority merely states that it finds nothing speculative, illogical or unfair in the allocation.
I would remand these cases to the Tax Court for a determination not inconsistent with our earlier opinion as we now construe it.