Pierce Butler, Handy Harman v. Burnet — Opinion of the Court
“ Affiliation on any other basis would not make against inequality or evasion. It would require very plain language to show that Congress intended to permit consolidated returns to depend on a basis so indefinite and uncertain as control of stock without title, beneficial ownership or legal means to enforce it. ”
Pierce Butler, Handy Harman v. Burnet — Opinion of the Court
“ It requires no discussion to show that such returns will not make against inequality or evasion unless the same interests are the beneficial owners in like proportions of substantially all of the stock of each of such corporations. ”
Pierce Butler, Handy Harman v. Burnet — Opinion of the Court
“ The losses sustained by Hamilton & De Loss, Inc., did not, in respect of that stock, directly or indirectly result to his disadvantage. The section requires control of substantially all of the stock; control of the corporations is not enough. [2] The carrying on of a business unit by two or more corporations does not in itself constitute affiliation. The shares of Hamilton & De Loss, Inc., owned by the six shareholders did not constitute substantially all of its stock. ”
