Case: WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Wisconsin Central Railroad v. United States
Decision Date: 1961-12-06
Docket Number: No. 64-59
Citation: 155 Ct. Cl. 781
Volume: 155
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Darr, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation; Dureee, Judge; Laramore, Judge; and Whitaker, Judge, concur.
Pages: 781–797

Head Matter:
WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 64-59.
Decided December 6, 1961]
Joseph M. Jones for the plaintiff. Fordyoe W. Ovouch, Robert T. Molloy and Kenneth W. Moroney were on the brief.
Benjamin H. Pester, with whom was Assistant Attorney General Louis F. Oberdorfer, for the defendant. James P. Garland, Philip R. Miller and Mildred L. Seidman were on the brief.
Plaintiff’s petition for -writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court, 369 U.S. 885.

Opinion:
Jones, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action to recover $253,659.98 in income tax and $32,731.15 in interest paid by plaintiff as successor to Wisconsin Central Eailway Company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "predecessor") in a bankruptcy reorganization under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act.
The facts are stipulated. Predecessor, a Wisconsin corporation which operated as a common carrier by rail, was in receivership from December 3,1932, to September 30,1944, and, from September 30, 1944, to March 1, 1954, was in trusteeship under a section 77 reorganization proceeding. Reorganization managers, designated pursuant to a plan approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the district court, decided that the reorganized company should be a new corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota, rather than a continuation of the old corporate shell with appropriate charter amendments. Plaintiff was thereupon organized and, as of March 1, 1954, pursuant to the district court's final decree, acquired all properties, but not all liabilities, of predecessor. Since that date, plaintiff has operated as a common carrier by rail.
As is pertinent, the consummation order and final decree provided as follows: All properties of predecessor were vested in plaintiff, and taken free and clear of all rights of predecessor's creditors and stockholders, except as otherwise provided in the decree. Plaintiff was required to pay all Federal taxes owing by predecessor. The consummation order and decree "otherwise provided" that plaintiff assume a considerable part of predecessor's liabilities, in addition to those for taxes. For example, it assumed obligations of more than $5,000,000 for conditional sales agreements and equipment trusts. Predecessor's bonded indebtedness, totaling approximately $56,500,000, was not assumed, but was discharged by the issuance of new bonds in the amount of $35,000,000 and shares of plaintiff's common stock. However, unsecured creditors (in the amount of $9,000,000) and all the old corporation's preferred and common stockholders (of par value totaling $27,000,000) were wiped out.
Predecessor had a net income for the calendar year 1953 for which plaintiff paid the income tax due. For plaintiff's taxable year of March 1, 1954, to December 31, 1954, there was a net operating loss in an amount sufficient to eliminate all net income of predecessor, if allowed as a net operating loss carryback to 1953.
The single issue before this court is whether, under the rules of law developed with respect to the applicability of section 122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 to tax consequences of a reorganization, plaintiff is entitled to a net operating loss carryback to the year 1953 under section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. This requires a determination of whether the plaintiff and its predecessor are "the taxpayer" to which section 122(b) (1) (A) allowed the advantage of a carryback.
In two early cases, the Supreme Court was faced with a successor corporation asking that it be allowed to utilize tax attributes of its predecessor. The first, New Colonial Ice Co., Inc. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934), involved a voluntary agreement between creditors and stockholders to transfer all assets and liabilities of the old corporation to a new corporation, organized for this purpose. Stating that tax deductions were a matter of legislative grace, and thus needed authorization by specific provision, the Court required the successor to show that it was the "same taxpayer" as its predecessor in order to be entitled to carry over the old corporation's net operating loss sustained prior to the reorganization. In holding the corporations were not the "same taxpayer," the Court stressed that a corporation and its stockholders are separate and distinct legal entities; therefore, there was no continuity of ownership even though the ultimate individuals in interest were the same.
Five years later, in Helvering v. Metro. Edison Co., 306 U.S. 522 (1939), a successor corporation had acquired by merger all the assets and assumed all the liabilities by operation of law of its former subsidiaries. The Supreme Court held that since the transactions were not sales, but rather statutory mergers (or, as in one reorganization, a de facto merger); it came within "the principle that the corporate personality of the transferor is drowned in that of the transferee." 306 U.S. at 529. Thus the continuing corporation was treated as the same taxpayer as its predecessor, and assumed the latter's tax attributes.
A reconciliation of these two cases was achieved in Stanton Brewery, Inc. v. Commissioner, 176 F. 2d 573 (2d Cir. 1949). There a parent holding company survived a statutory merger with its wholly owned operating subsidiary. The court of appeals allowed the resultant corporation the use of an unused excess profits tax carryover of the former subsidiary. It was explained that unlike New Colonial, and like Metro. Edison, this was not a voluntary transfer of assets by purchase or contract, but a transfer by operation of law. The statutory merger resulted in the taxpayer taking on the obligations, including tax liabilities, of its components by operation of law. It should be noted that the facts in Stanton Brewery showed no shift in ownership (the stockholders remained the same), and the business activities did not change after the merger.
In Koppers Co., Inc. v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 22 (1955), this court was first faced with the problem. There a newly formed corporation merged, pursuant to state law, a parent company and its subsidiaries who had filed consolidated tax returns prior to the merger. The merger was tax-free under section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. We allowed the surviving corporation's unused excess profits tax credit for its first taxable year to be carried back to reduce the consolidated excess profits net income of the corporations before merger. This was done because we felt that the realistic approach of Stanton Brewery best reflected legislative intention. In this respect we could find no reason, nor do we now find any reason, not to allow a surviving corporation in a tax-free merger, which continues the same business with substantially the same ownership, to utilize tax attributes of its predecessors when, but for the merger, the predecessors would have been entitled to take advantage of the privilege in question. We did not deem it essential to discover what legal status the applicable state law gave the components after the merger. Instead we noted that congressional policy since the 1921 Revenue Act showed a more realistic approach to reorganization problems as reflected by the tax-free exchange provisions. "The purpose of these provisions was to allow the corporation to make formal readjustments and carry out ordinary business transactions without disastrous tax consequences." 133 Ct. Cl. at 32. But whether a tax-free reorganization alone would be sufficient reason to apply the Stanton Brewery doctrine, or "whether the New Oolonial Ice Company case should still be held controlling in the non-merger and consolidation cases in view of the changes in legislative policy," it was not necessary to decide, since the plaintiff in Koppers resulted from a merger and was not within that category. 133 Ct. Cl. at 33.
Two other decisions from the courts of appeal, prior to the Supreme Court's next attempt to clarify this area, clearly required that a statutory merger be present before a predecessor's tax attributes could be utilized by its successor. See Gallo Winery v. Commissioner, 227 F. 2d 699 (9th Cir. 1955); Newmarket Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 233 F. 2d 493 (1st Cir. 1956). The court in Newmarket expressly distinguished New Colonial as not involving a statutory merger. 233 F. 2d at 498.
Now the scene is set for Libson Shops, Inc. v. Koehler, 353 U.S. 382 (1957), in which one corporation, the plaintiff, provided management services for 16 separate corporations engaged in selling women's apparel. The latter were operated separately and filed separate income tax returns. These 16 corporations were merged into plaintiff pursuant to state law. Prior to the merger, identical interests owned each corporation; subsequent thereto this was unchanged for plaintiff's stock was issued pro rata in exchange for the stock of the other corporations. Plaintiff argued that it should be allowed to carry over a pre-merger net operating loss of three of its components. These units had continued to suffer losses after the merger, while the other units, and what was now the single enterprise, showed a profit. The question was whether the resulting corporation was "the taxpayer" having the pre-merger losses as required by section 122 of the 1939 Code. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to discuss the plaintiff's contention that, since a statutory merger was involved, it came within the rule of Metro. Edison, and not New Colonial. Rather, the Supreme Court refused to allow the carryover because a "continuity of business enterprise" requirement disposed of the case. 353 U.S. at 386. This test required that "the income against which the offset is claimed [must be] produced by substantially the same business which incurred the losses." 353 U.S. at 390. Obviously the income against which the offset was claimed was not earned by the units ("the same business") which had sustained the loss. Of further importance to the issue before us is the fact that the Supreme Court cited Stanton Brewery, Newmarket, and Koppers as meeting the "continuing enterprise" test. In these three cases, it is ap parent that, but for the merger, the old corporation would have been entitled to use the tax privilege involved.
At least one thing is clear from Libson Shops, merger alone is not a sufficient basis for allowing the resultant corporation to succeed to its predecessor's tax attributes. The Supreme Court required that tax attributes of a pre-merger corporation could only be utilized to the extent that one could trace that corporation as a unit in the resulting enterprise. Even then the pre-merger corporation's losses could be used only to offset that unit's income or, conversely, the unit's losses could be carried back only to offset the income of its pre-merger form.
But did the Court, in relying on a "continuing enterprise" doctrine, imply that this test could be satisfied even where there was no statutory merger or consolidation ? The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit opinion subsequent to Libson Shops retained the merger requirement. The Internal Revenue Service's answer was also negative. Revenue Ruling 59-895 adopted an allocation procedure in accordance with what Libson Shops seemed to require, but such was to be available only after a statutory merger or consolidation.
Nevertheless, the court of appeals in Donovan Inc. v. United States, 261 F. 2d 470, 476 (1st Cir. 1958), stated that no longer was it satisfactory to distinguish New Golonial on the basis of a contrast between statutory merger and other forms of corporate reorganization. In Donovan, there was a tax-free reorganization (under section 112(b)(6) of the 1939 Code), but not a statutory merger, pursuant to which a parent corporation absorbed its wholly owned subsidiary. Consolidated returns had been filed by the corporations prior to the reorganization. The court stressed what we had noted in the Koppers case, that the Congress, by adding provisions to the Code to allow certain transactions to be tax-free, recognized that in certain corporate reorganizations there was no realistic economic change. Therefore, the court would not rely on a separate entity concept or merger requirement to preclude the resultant corporation from carrying back a net operating loss sustained after tlie reorganization by the unit which was the pre-merger subsidiary, to offset the income the subsidiary earned prior to the reorganization.
We interpret Donovan as providing that when there is a tax-free reorganization resulting in a "continuing enterprise" (in the sense that the beneficial ownership and business activities are substantially the same after the reorganization as before, and the transferee corporation assumes the liabilities of the transferor ) and, but for the reorganization, the old corporation would be entitled to the tax attribute, then the resultant corporation is entitled to utilize the tax attribute.
It is evident from the facts in the case before this court that the reorganization was not a statutory merger; nor was it a de facto merger as that term was applied in Metro. Edison, since the plaintiff did not assume all the liabilities of its transferor.
But, does the reorganization in question qualify as tax-free, and thus come within the Donovan case? "Tax-free reorganization" is the term generally applied to reorganizations described in section 112(g) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, since 112(b) (3) and (4) provide that "no gain or loss shall be recognized" in transfers pursuant to reorganization. Similarly, section 112(b) (10) provides that "no gain or loss shall be recognized" on the reorganization of corporations, "other than a railroad corporation," in certain receivership and bankruptcy proceedings. However, with respect to the transfer of property of a railroad corporation in a proceeding under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, which is the type involved here, section 112(b) (9) only provides that "no loss shall be recognized." Gain, it follows, was intended to be recognized. The reorganization pursuant to which plaintiff resulted, therefore, does not meet the technical requirements of a tax-free reorganization.
It is true that section 113(a) (20) provides that the basis of property acquired under a section 77 railroad reorganization shall be the same in the hands of the trans feree corporation as it was in the hands of the transferor. However, even if we adopted the Donovan rule that a transferee corporation in a tax-free reorganization may be entitled to its transferor's tax privileges, we certainly cannot say the same should be true merely because a transfer resulted in a substituted basis.
Nor can the plaintiff argue under Helvering v. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co., 315 U.S. 179 (1942), that it has a sufficient continuity of ownership to bring it within the "continuing enterprise" rule. From the aforementioned authorities we have demonstrated that aside from this rule, the plaintiff must first show that it is a resulting corporation from a statutory merger or consolidation, or, possibly under the Donovan case, at least from a tax-free reorganization. This plaintiff has not done, and the fact that it may be a "continuing enterprise" (in the sense of ownership and business activities) avails it nothing. In addition, plaintiff has not assumed substantially all of its transferor's liabilities, a further element of "continuing enterprise" as we interpret the Donovan case.
The plaintiff, in asserting its claim, has primarily relied on the decision of this court in Wabash Railroad Co. v. United States, 143 Ct. Cl. 316 (1958). The issue in that case can be seen from our discussion at page 321:
The defendant contends that [taxpayer] was not entitled to use its bankrupt predecessor's imused excess profits carryovers until the date of the enactment of Public Law 189 in 1947 and that consequently from March 15, 1943 (the due date of [taxpayer's] excess profits tax return for the calendar year 1942), to July 15, 1947 (the day on which Public Law 189 became law), [taxpayer] was, under the law as it then existed, actually liable for the excess profits tax [which was potentially due until the effective date of the Act].
The taxpayer in Wabash, a successor railroad in a section 77 proceeding as is the plaintiff here, desired a refund of the interest it paid on the "potential deficiency" assessed for its taxable year of 1942. If taxpayer was not actually liable for the excess profits tax in 1942, then there would not be a "potential deficiency" and, of course, no interest would be due. Taxpayer would not have been liable for such tax in 1942, if at that time it had the right to carry over an excess profits tax credit of its predecessor arising in the predecessor's taxable years of 1940 and 1941, which were ' immediately prior to the effective date of the reorganization on December 31,1941.
One ground on which our opinion rested, as is indicated by the concurring opinion at pages 329 and 330, was that the Congress in passing Public Law 189 (the latter is more fully explained in footnote 5 of the present opinion) intended "to give to the successor corporation the right to avail itself of the unused excess profits credit of the predecessor corporation as of tbe time when the successor corporation was required to file its income tax return." Thus, "no deficiency resulted, and, therefore, no interest is due."
But, and of particular relevancy to the case at bar, we also held alternatively that a successor railroad, like plaintiff, was, even prior to the passage of Public Law 189, the same taxpayer as its predecessor for purposes of utilizing its predecessor's excess profits credit tax carryover. (For this reason also, no "potential deficiency" ever existed, and, therefore, no interest was due.) Although we noted that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had ruled that the transaction was not tax-free, and that the reorganization did not meet the literal requirements of the applicable Code provisions, we nevertheless treated it as essentially a tax-free reorganization. As a basis for this construction, we interpreted the Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co. case as holding that when a continuity of ownership was found, a resultant corporation in a bankruptcy reorganization which did not literally qualify as a tax-free reorganization could be treated as a tax-free reorganization. Upon reconsideration of this point, we have decided we were in error in our application of the Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co. case. The reasons for this are discussed in footnote 10 of this opinion.
Also, when applying the "continuing enterprise" requirement of Lib son Shops, we assumed that the taxpayer in Wabash had taken over all the obligations of its predecessor corporation. Whether or not this element of the "continuing enterprise" test was satisfied in Wabash, it is apparent that it is not satisfied in the case presently before us.
In this reorganization the old stockholders were wiped out; they were no longer in the business; the new stockholders were some of the former creditors of the business. The same business was being carried on, but by a different group of people. Thus, continuing ownership is not present, and, hence, the successor corporation cannot carry back its losses to offset the gain realized by the old corporation.
In light of the foregoing, we are constrained to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover and its petition will be dismissed.
Findings of Fact
It is so ordered.
Darr, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation; Dureee, Judge; Laramore, Judge; and Whitaker, Judge, concur.
EINDINGS OF EACT
The court, having considered the evidence, the stipulation of the parties, and the briefs and argument of counsel, makes findings of fact as follows:
1. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the United States the sum of $286,391.13 together with interest thereon as provided by law, which sum represents income tax plus deficiency interest thereon collected from plaintiff by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in respect of the income tax liability of plaintiff's predecessor corporation, Wisconsin Central Railway Company (hereinafter called predecessor) , for the calendar year 1953.
2. An income tax return for predecessor for the calendar year 1953 was duly filed with the District Director of Internal Revenue at St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 14, 1954. No tax liability was reported thereon. Thereafter, the Commissioner determined a deficiency of $175,948.79, and that amount, together with $16,220.19 interest, was paid by plaintiff on December 29, 1955. Thereafter, the Commissioner determined a further deficiency of $77,711.19, and that amount, together with $19,581.09 interest, was paid by plaintiff on June 6, 1958. In November 1958, the Commissioner refunded $3,070.13 of the interest theretofore paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff has thus paid $253,659.98 tax and $32,731.15 interest, or a total of $286,391.13, in respect of predecessor's liability for 1953.
3. By agreement timely executed between plaintiff and the Commissioner, the period for assessment of income taxes with respect to predecessor's calendar year 1953 was extended to June 30, 1958. On June 27, 1958, and within the time prescribed by law, plaintiff filed a claim for refund of $253,659.98 income tax and $35,801.28 deficiency interest thereon paid by plaintiff in respect of predecessor's income tax liability for the calendar year 1953. The allegations in the claim are denied by the defendant. Under date of February 18, 1959, the Commissioner mailed to plaintiff by registered mail a notice of the complete disallowance of the claim.
4. Predecessor was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. Until March 1, 1954, it was engaged in business as a common carrier by rail.
5. Predecessor was in receivership from December 3, 1932, to September 30,1944. From September 30, 1944, to March 1, 1954, predecessor was in trusteeship in a reorganization proceeding under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended. Throughout both proceedings, predecessor was under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
6. A plan of reorganization for predecessor was prepared. The plan was approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its second supplemental order of September 15, 1952 (282 I.C.C. 567), and by the District Court in an order entered April 17,1953. The plan was duly confirmed by the District Court by order entered October 1, 1953. The plan included the following provisions:
^Reorganized Company
The term "reorganized company," as used herein, means the corporation, whether the debtor or a new corporation, which shall issue the new securities provided for in the plan. The reorganization managers may determine, with the approval of the court, whether a new corporation shall be organized or whether the new securities shall be issued by the debtor, with appropriate amendments to its certificate of incorporation. The reorganized company, if other than the debtor, shall be incorporated under the laws of such State as the court may direct. All property of the debtor and of its trustee shall be transferred to the reorganized company subject to and in accordance with the plan.
7. Pursuant to the plan, reorganization managers were designated. The reorganization managers determined that the "reorganized company" should be a corporation of the State of Minnesota under the name of Wisconsin Central .Bailroad Company. Their determination was approved by the District Court by an order entered February 19, 1954. Plaintiff was organized on February 19, 1954, under the laws of the State of Minnesota, by the reorganization managers acting pursuant to the order of the District Court, for the purpose of carrying out the plan of reorganization. From February 19,1954, to March 1,1954, plaintiff conducted no business and had no assets other than $1,000.00 cash paid in for stock upon its organization.
8. As of 12:01 a.m. on March 1, 1954, plaintiff acquired all of the property of predecessor, pursuant to the plan of reorganization and pursuant to the consummation order and final decree of the District Court, entered February 26, 1954. Since March 1, 1954, plaintiff has operated as a common carrier by rail.
9. The consummation order and final decree provided in part as follows:
3. Transfer of Property. Except as otherwise provided in this order, at 12:01 A.M., Central Standard Time, on March 1, 1954 (referred to in this order as the Consummation Date), all of the business and affairs of the Debtor, and all right, title, and interest of the Debtor and the trustee of its property, in and to its property of every kind and description, whether real, personal, or mixed, whether tangible or intangible, and whether of present or future interests, and all rights, privileges, and franchises of the Debtor shall, the laws of any state or the decisions or orders of any state authority to the contrary notwithstanding, vest in and become the absolute property of Wisconsin Central Bailroad Company (referred to in this order as the New Company), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, free and clear of all rights, claims, interests, liens, and encumbrances of the creditors of the Debtor and of the holders of the shares of capital stock of the Debtor, and except as otherwise provided in this order the Debtor shall thereupon be released and discharged forever from all of its debts and liabilities, whether or not the same shall have been presented or allowed as claims in these proceedings. The New Company and its property shall also be free and clear or all such rights, claims, interests, liens, encumbrances, debts, obligations, and liabilities, except as otherwise provided in this order.
21. Assumption and Payment of Taxes Due to the United States. The New Company shall on the Consummation Date assume liability for and pay in full in due course any and all taxes due the United States of America from the Debtor, the receivers, the bankruptcy trustees, or any of them, subject to the statutes of limitations normally applicable to the assessment and collection of such taxes;
10. As a result of the reorganization plan and consummation order and final decree, the plaintiff corporation assumed: all executory contracts made by the receivers or trustees in the operation of the predecessor's property; all claims against the predecessor entitled to priority over its respective mortgages; liabilities incurred in the operation of predecessor's property by the receivers prior to the reorganization proceedings or by the receiver or the trustees of the property of the predecessor during the reorganization proceedings; taxes (other than those of the United States of America) levied, assessed, or accrued against the predecessor or the bankruptcy trustee; all approved but unpaid costs of administration and reorganization; and obligations of more than $5,000,000 for conditional sales agreements and equipment trusts. Bonded indebtedness under three different mortgages (totaling approximately $56,500,000) was not assumed, but was discharged through issuance of new bonds (totaling approximately $35,000,000) and new common stock.
11. Unsecured claims (totaling approximately $9,000,000) were not assumed by the plaintiff. The interest of the preferred and common stockholders (of par value totaling approximately $27,000,000) was eliminated.
12. Predecessor's final taxable year was the period beginning January 1, 1954, and ending February 28, 1954. Plaintiff's first taxable year was the year beginning March 1,1954, and ending December 31,1954. In the period ended February 28, 1954, predecessor had a net operating loss which was allowed as a carryback to the year 1952.
13. The net income of predecessor for the calendar year 1953 was $522,656.84 before the allowance of any net operating loss deduction. For the taxable period March 1, 1954, to December 31, 1954, plaintiff had a net operating loss in an amount sufficient to eliminate all net income of predecessor for 1953 if allowed as a net operating loss carryback to 1953.
14. Plaintiff is tbe sole owner of tbe claim sued upon and that no assignment or transfer thereof, or any part thereof, or interest therein, has been made.
CONCLUSION OP LAW
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, which are made a part of the judgment herein, the court concludes as a matter of law that plaintiff is not entitled to recover and its petition is therefore dismissed.
30 Stat. 544, as amended, 11 U.S.C. § 205 (1958 Ed.).
26 U.S.C. (I.R.C. 1939) § 122 (1952 Ed.).
26 U.S.C. (I.R.C. 1954) § 172 (Supp. II, 1952 Ed.):. Section 381 of tile 1954 Code reflects new rules for ascertaining when a successor corporation in certain corporate acquisitions is entitled to carry oyer or back a net operating loss from or to its predecessor. These rules did not become effective until after the reorganization in the case at bar. No inference is to be drawn from this enactment as to whether tax attributes can be utilized by a successor corporation under pre-existing law. See Koppers Co., Inc. v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 22, 34 (1955) cert. denied 353 U.S. 983.
Section 122(b)(1)(A) provides as is pertinent:
"If for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1941, and before January 1, 1950, the taxpayer has a net operating loss, such net operating loss shall be a net operating loss -carryback for each of the two preceding taxable years [Emphasis added.]
The Government has strongly urged that Public Law 189, 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C. 1939) § 122 note (1952 Ed.), ch. 249, 61 Stat. 3-24, so affected the applicable law in this area as to preclude plaintiff from recovery in this case.
P.L. 189 provided, in summary, that if a successor railroad acquired, prior to January 1, 1950, property from a predecessor railroad in a § 77 proceeding, it was entitled to use the net operating loss carryover of the predecessor (for years after 1940) "so far as possible as if the predecessor corporation had been made use of in such proceeding instead of the successor corporation." Basing the argument on P.L. 189 and its legislative history, the Government asserts that the Congress believed this to be a change in the pre-existing law. This being so, it is contended, the Congress implied there was to be no carryover unless the qualifying reorganization was affected before January 1, 1950. Further, the congressional intent was that there was to be no carryback before or after that date.
However, it must be noted that the reorganization involved in this case does not fall under the express provisions of P.L. 189, since the reorganization took place on March 1, 1954. In addition, the courts are in conflict as to whether P.L. 189 provides a clear congressional intent as to the assumption of corporate attributes in reorganizations not expressly covered by that Act. Compare Stanton Brewery, Inc. v. Commissioner, 176 F. 2d 573, 577 (2d Cir. 1949), with Donohue v. United States, 112 F. Supp. 663 (E. D. Mo. 1953). This court in Koppers Co., Inc. v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 22, 35 (1955), found no such clear intent. We therefore feel that the issue in the present case should be based upon something less tenuous than congressional intent gleaned solely from its silence.
Carryover provisions prior to the 1954 Code used substantially the same phraseology. See, e.g., Revenue Act oí 1924, ch. 234, § 206(b), 43 Stat. 260 ("If, for any taxable year, it appears that any taxpayer has sustained a net loss, the amount thereof shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the net income of the taxpayer for the succeeding taxable year." [Emphasis added.]); Int. Rev. Code of 1939, § 122(b) (1) (A) (see supra note 4). The New Colonial case involved the interpretation of § 204(b) of the Revenue Act of 1921, ch. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 231, which was similar to § 206(b) of the Revenue Act of 1924, supra. Thus, cases interpreting the term "the taxpayer," and cases which hold a successor corporation to be in effect the same taxpayer as its predecessor for the purpose of utilizing tax attributes are relevant. Metro. Mdison concerned the successor's deduction of unamortized bond discount and expense in connection with its retiring certain bonds of corporations which, before a merger pursuant to state law, were its subsidiaries.
Patten Fine Pavers v. Commissioner, 249 F. 2d 776, 780 (7th Cir. 1957) (liquidation of subsidiary and parent's acquisition of its assets).
1959-2 Cum. Bull. 475.
See Willingham v. United States, 289 F. 2d 283 (5th Cir. 1961), which included these elements in the "continuing enterprise" doctrine.
We feel it necessary to clarify the rule involved in the Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Company case. Aside from meeting the literal requirements of a tax-free reorganization provision, to qualify under the relevant provision permitting use of the transferor's basis in a tax-free reorganization, the taxpayer has also been required to show a continuity of interest between the owners of the resulting corporation and the owners of the corporation prior to reorganization. See La Tulle v. Scoffield, 308 U.S. 415 (1940). In the Alabama Asphaltic case the reorganization literally qualified as tax-free under the then applicable Code provision. However, under the bankruptcy plan the old stockholders were wiped out, and the creditors of the old corporation received the new stock. In essence, the Supreme Court held that the creditors of the bankrupt corporation, upon initiation of the bankruptcy proceeding, became the "owners." Thus, when the reorganization was finalized and the creditors received the new corporation's stock, the requisite continuity of interest was present. In Atlas Oil and Refining Corp. V. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 675, cited by plaintiff in its oral argument, a similar situation was involved. There a reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act literally qualified as tax-free under § 112 (b) (10) of the 1939 Code. The insolvent corporation's stockholders were eliminated. The Tax Court held that the second mortgage bondholders, who received preferred stock in the new corporation, held the equity interest in the old corporation prior to the finalized reorganization. This satisfied the continuity of interest requirement.
It is apparent that continuity of interest did not become an issue in these cases until a tax-free reorganization provision was literally met. They do not hold that once a continuity of interest is found the reorganization is tax-free. We do not feel that the rules developed in reference to continuity of interest in the Alabama Asphaltic sense are equally applicable to a determination of continuing ownership in the Libson Shops sense.
See also Willingham v. United States, supra note 9. This case illustrates that, even apart from the Issue of whether a statutory merger is a condition precedent to the privilege of assuming a predecessor's tax attributes, where an old corporation's charter is retained by a resultant non-railroad corporation in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act, the reorganization does not necessarily meet the "continuing enterprise" test of Libson Shops. In disallowing the new corporation's use of a net operating loss carryover of the old corporation, the court gave as one reason the fact that the successor had not assumed All tiie liabilities of its transferee.