Court Opinion

ID: 9541542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:26:28.067518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:15.384133
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hershey, dissenting: The majority opinion bases its conclusion upon the frequent use of the words “mortgage” and “loan”. This is an equitable proceeding in which it has been repeatedly held that the court will look through form to the substance of the transaction. This sealing agreement is in substance a sale with option to repurchase. It is intended to benefit the producer by enabling him to exercise his option should the market price of the grain make it wise for him to do so. If he still owns the corn after sealing there would be no obligation on the part of the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay storage on it, which the resealing agreement provides. That the sealing amounts to a sale is also clear from the fact that the producer pays income tax on the purchase price received by him. This entire agreement is an anomaly in the law. It can hardly be classed as a mortgage and loan, as it provides that either side may withdraw before the maturity date. The majority opinion refers to other jurisdictions which have held that the corn still belongs to the producer and is subject to personal property tax. These other jurisdictions have no higher authority than ours and, while they should ■ not be ignored, we are not required to follow them. The opinion also refers to the burden of the taxpayer to prove a claimed exemption and cites many cases which rightly lay down that rule. But that is not exactly the issue here. The question here is who owns the corn. The facts are not in dispute, as they often are when a use exemption is involved. The cases cited are not applicable to the situation here. I feel that the trial court was right, and I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the decree.