Court Opinion

ID: 8886797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 22:04:36.300406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:57.783632
License: Public Domain

. LARAMORE, Judge
(concurring):
As initially noted in the Per Curiam portion, this case comes before the court after the parties thereto filed a joint motion for judgment requesting that the court adopt the trial commissioner’s findings of fact, opinion and recommended conclusion. It is a puzzle to me why the defendant does not pursue the reorganization argument under 26 U.S. C. § 368(a) (1) (D) (1970) as developed by the James Armour, Inc. case, 43 T.C. 295 (1964), but having not done so, I reluctantly concur with the result arrived at by our commissioner.