Court Opinion

ID: 9448296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:30:22.454614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:21.948783
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Because the foregoing opinion relies on cited courts of appeals’ holdings exclusively, I find no reason for abandoning the views which I expressed, in dissent, in Maysteel Products, Inc. v. Commissioner, 287 F.2d 429, 431. There I set forth .the teachings of the United States Supreme Court which prevent us from exalting artifice above reality. Fon that *458reason, I repeat, as applicable here what I said in Maysteel, at 432:
“I would hold, in the case at bar, that petitionei’’s purchase and ephemeral ownership of bonds had no independent commercial significance but were simply a device to secure an amortization deduction in addition to a charitable contribution deduction. It is my opinion that only the gift of bonds had any real economic significance.
“For these reasons, I would affirm.”