Court Opinion

ID: 9454787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:59:13.083186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:18.607243
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I agree that the contract does not obligate St. Regis to exercise its backlog privilege and that the law requires us to take the contract as written. If this were not so I would unhesitatingly hold that these taxpayers are entitled to § *828631(b) treatment. I have no idea that St. Regis is spending its money for timber that it will not cut.
Neither am I fully satisfied that the taxpayers other than L. O. Crosby, Jr. should be denied § 1221 treatment. The trouble is that our function is one of review. We cannot reverse findings of fact merely because we might have found differently had we been the first to hear the case. See Kirby Lumber Corporation v. Phinney, 5 Cir., 412 F.2d 598. We can reverse only if findings are clearly erroneous.
I therefore concur in the foregoing opinion.