# Fort Howard Corp. v. Commissioner

> United States Tax Court · August 24, 1994 · 103 T.C. 345

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472373

## Case

- **Full name:** Fort Howard Corporation and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** August 24, 1994
- **Citations:** 103 T.C. 345; 103 T.C. No. 18; 1994 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 63
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Halpern
- **Judges:** Ruwe,Hamblen,Chabot,Swift,Jacobs,Gerber,Wright,Wells,Whalen,Colvin,Chiechi,Laro,Halpern,Beghe,Beghe,Halpern
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472373

## Opinion text

Halpern J., dissenting: In its long opinion, the majority spends little if any effort to determine Congress’ reasons for adding the rule found in section 162(k). Having failed to do so, it is unable to test its result against such reasons. Its analysis is, thus, less than fully satisfying. Congress appears to have been concerned with taxpayer attempts to move the capital-ordinary boundary in the universe of stock redemp-tions. See H. Rept. 99-426 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 248; S. Rept. 99-313 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 222; H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1, 168. It is not clear to me that Congress decided to deal with that attempt by adopting a scorched earth policy (which is the way I read the majority’s opinion). Judge Beghe’s inquiry appears to me to lead to a more satisfying approach to the problem. Therefore, I join Judge Beghe.
Beghe, J., agrees with this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472373. Public record. Not legal advice.