United States v. Jackson Oldsmobile, Inc., 22485.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBROWN and COLEMAN, Circuit , and GARZA
Citation371 F.2d 808
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. JACKSON OLDSMOBILE, INC., Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 22485.,22485.
Decision Date23 January 1967

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Floyd M. Buford, U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., C. Moxley Featherston, Gilbert E. Andrews, Thomas L. Stapleton, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Richard M. Roberts, Acting Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Charles W. Walker, R. Lanier Anderson, III, Macon, Ga., for appellee.

Before BROWN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and GARZA, District Judge.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a District Court Judgment which allowed a corporate income taxpayer to carry over 1953 and 1954 net operating losses and deduct them from profits earned during 1956 and 1957. The thorough, exhaustive findings and conclusions of the able District Judge appear in a published opinion, 237 F.Supp. 779 (1964).

The respective positions of the taxpayers and the Government have been thoroughly briefed and argued to this Court. Upon mature consideration, we agree with the decision below that the taxpayer was entitled to the carry over. Consequently, no good purpose is to be served by preparing and publishing a duplicate opinion.

Suffice it to say, we agree with the District Court that under all the facts of this case, the principle of Libson Shops, Inc. v. Koehler, 353 U.S. 382, 77 S.Ct. 990, 1 L.Ed.2d 924 (1957) did not bar this carry over, and we further agree that there was not a defacto liquidation within the rule of Wier Long Leaf Lumber Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 549.

We appreciate the argument of the Government that the outcome permits the minority stockholder, Jackson, in the ultimate, to enjoy a tax benefit of a kind not usually encountered. Under the law and the particular facts of this case, however, we feel that this consideration cannot affect the result reached. If the result has any material importance, as it may have on the application of existing carry over tax statutes to particular corporate operations then the problem is a legislative one.

The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge (concurring).

I concur in the opinions and disposition but would add these brief comments.

The pudding's eating ought to be proof in tax cases too. Figures speak and when they do, Courts listen. Brooks v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1966, 366 F.2d 1, 9. The Government's doctrinaire effort to ignore this because this is an accounting result hardly suffices in a statutory system which not only permits, but requires the maintenance of books on accepted accounting principles, so much so that before changes can be made, governmental consent must first be had. See, e. g., Int.Rev.Code of 1954, §§ 446, 6001; Regulations § 1.446-1 (2); see generally Mertens, Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 2 § 12.05(a) (1961 revision), Vol. 8A § 47.43 (1964 revision).

Under the financing program (see note 1, 237 F.Supp. 779, 780), General Motors was both an equity investor and a lender. It owned 60% of the stock (indeed 100% of the voting stock). Jackson owned 40%. GM loaned Jax-Olds $37,500, repayable with interest. GM thus had at stake $75,000, Jackson $25,000. Although it is true that the earnings of Jax-Olds enabled Jackson with his $25,000 initial outlay to end up owning 100% of the business, it is far from true that he alone benefited. On the contrary, GM on the pay-out1 received substantially $35,000 in excess of its outlay for interest on the debt (Item (1) (b)), appreciation premium on Class A stock (Items (2) (b), 3 (b)) and dividends (Item (5)).2 Thus, the benefit to GM from dividends and appreciation in stock value amounted to 29% of the total received by it.

The Trial Judge was therefore correct in concluding that GM, as owner of 60% of the stock, received the majority benefit from the carry-over deductions. The benefit was in the form of dividends and appreciation in the value of the stock. Cf. TIR 773.

1 This was consummated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Vulcan Materials Company v. United States, 30116
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 25 Junio 1971
    ...change in the beneficial ownership of the loss, engage in substantially the same business as in United States v. Jackson Oldsmobile, Inc., 371 F.2d 808 (5 Cir. 1967); nor was there a merger of two corporations, each of which was controlled by the same stockholders prior to the merger as in ......
  • Chilivis v. Studebaker Worthington, Inc., 51127
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 8 Enero 1976
    ...well be justice in allowing a loss carry-over.' See also, Jackson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. United States, D.C.Ga, 237 F.Supp. 779, aff'd in 371 F.2d 808 (5 Cir. 1967); Page 751 Rev.Ruling 63-40 (1963-1 C.B. 46). The rationale is that since the stockholders who suffered the loss are substantially......
  • United States v. Board of Education of City of Bessemer, 25809-25811.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 3 Junio 1968
    ...appeals. We reverse and remand. As figures speak and when they do courts listen, United States v. Jackson Oldsmobile, Inc., 5 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 808, 809 (concurring opinion); Brooks v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1966, 366 F.2d 1, 9 and cases cited n. 14, the stage setting of undisputed facts reveals ......
  • Anbaco-Emig Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 4032-65.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1967
    ...considered in the net operating loss area. However, in Jackson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. United States, 237 F.Supp. 779 (M.C. Ga. 1964), affd. 371 F.2d 808 (C.A. 5, 1967), respondent again relied on the same excess profits tax credit cases previously discussed in an attempt to show that the petit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT