Court Opinion

ID: 9425334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:24.467633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.825067
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
While I join the dissent of Mr. Justice Stewart, I add a few words. Funds were contributed by the States and by the Federal Government to respondent for the construction of highway overpasses and underpasses and for grade-crossing protection equipment. While the Government provided most of the funds, the respondent did most of the construction work — all as found by the Court of Claims. 197 Ct. Cl. 264, 271, 455 F. 2d 993, 997-998.
This case is not controlled by Detroit Edison Co. v. Commissioner, 319 U. S. 98, as Mr. Justice Stewart says, for there the advances were made by customers of a utility as part of “the price of the service.” Id., at 103. Here, however, the situation was different. As the Court of Claims found:
“[U]nder all the agreements, plaintiff was obligated to maintain and replace as necessary, at its own expense, facilities originally built. The facilities were constructed primarily for the benefit of the public to improve safety and to expedite motor-vehicle trafile flow. The record shows, however, that plaintiff received economic benefits from the facilities, e. g., probable lower accident rates, reduced expenses of operating crossing equipment and, where *417permitted, higher train speed limits. Plaintiff also received intangible benefits, e. g., goodwill from the community-at-large, which was to plaintiff’s long-term economic advantage.” 197 Ct. Cl., at 272, 455 F. 2d, at 998.
The case is therefore on all fours with Brown Shoe Go. v. Commissioner, 339 U. S. 583. In distinguishing Detroit Edison we said:
“Since in this case there are neither customers nor payments for service, we may infer a different purpose in the transactions between petitioner and the community groups. The contributions to petitioner were provided by citizens of the respective communities who neither sought nor could have anticipated any direct service or recompense whatever, their only expectation being that such contributions might prove advantageous to the community at large. Under these circumstances the transfers manifested a definite purpose to enlarge the working capital of the company.” Id., at 591.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims.